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

Exhibit 4.2

						
	 	NUMBER:  C-
SHARES: 


SEE REVERSE FOR
CERTAIN DEFINITIONS
CUSIP 192003 101



CODEX DNA, INC.
INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
COMMON STOCK
This Certifies that
is the owner of
FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK OF THE PAR VALUE OF $0.0001 EACH OF
CODEX DNA, INC.
(THE "COMPANY")
transferable 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 registered by the Registrar.
															
					
	Transfer Agent		_________________,
Codex DNA, Inc.
		_________________,
Codex DNA, Inc.

					 
					 
			CODEX DNA, INC.		 


			
	The Company will furnish without charge to each shareholder who so requests the powers, designations, preferences and relative, participating, optional or other special rights of each class of shares or series thereof of the Company and the qualifications, limitations, or restrictions of such preferences and/or rights. This certificate and the shares represented thereby are issued and shall be held subject to all the provisions of the Company’s certificate of incorporation and all amendments thereto and resolutions of the Board of Directors providing for the issue of securities (copies of which may be obtained from the secretary of the Company), to all of which the holder of this certificate by acceptance hereof assents. 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 laws or regulations:











																																	
	TEN COM	 	—as tenants in common	 	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT—	 	 	 	Custodian	 	 
	TEN ENT	 	—as tenants by the entireties	 	 	 	(Cust)	 	 	 	(Minor)
	JT TEN	 	—as joint tenants with right 
of survivorship and not as tenants in common	 		 	under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act
							
	 	 	 	 	 	 	(State)


Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.
For value received,                              hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto
			
	 
	(PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER(S) OF ASSIGNEE(S))
	 
	(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES), INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE(S))
	 
	
	Shares of the capital stock represented by the Certificate, and hereby irrevocably constitutes and appoints

	 
	
	Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Company with full power of substitution in the premises.
	 
	Dated:
	
	NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE(S) TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.

	
	Signature(s) Guaranteed:

	By
	
	
	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).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Cynthia Long, Appellant.

Submitted January 29, 2007;

decided February 13, 2007

*853Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 74 Trinity Place, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.

Judge Jones taking no part.
#### In the Matter of Earl Crutchfield, Respondent, v Walter R. Kelly, as Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility, et al., Appellants.

— Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law, and petition dismissed. Memorandum: It was error for Special Term to vacate the determination of the Hearing Officer based on inadequate employee assistance. In order for the issue to have been preserved, petitioner should have raised it before the Hearing Officer where the error, if any, could have been rectified *(Matter of Humphries v Coughlin,*112 AD2d 561, 562; *Matter of Geddes v Wilmot,*111 AD2d 474, 475, *appeal dismissed*66 NY2d 914). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J. — art 78.) Present —Doerr, J. P., Green, Balio, Lawton and Schnepp, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         547,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               12,216,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   579,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,929,000
<PP&E>                                      23,294,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                5,480,00
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              99,221,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       16,852,000
<BONDS>                                     75,827,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        91,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,952,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                99,221,000
<SALES>                                     68,629,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            68,629,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               32,387,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            34,674,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          13,524,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (11,956,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   164,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (12,120,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (12,120,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.53)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) AUDITED
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FOR THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO  SUCH  (B)  QUARTERLY  REPORT  ON  FORM 10-QSB.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         595
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 5088
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             35683
<PP&E>                                      998946
<DEPRECIATION>                              213008
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             1573615
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      2637733
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    261529
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                  42427
<OTHER-SE>                                (1474077)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               1573615
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             33464
<CGS>                                       112998
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               231990
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             48322
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           64275
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (246848)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (246848)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              39624
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               (286472)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.06)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1





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 of Altair Nanotechnologies Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Terry Copeland, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





(a)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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








By: /s/  Terry Copeland


Terry Copeland


President and Chief Executive Officer


February 25, 2011
1

Bureau of Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation

GCDAMP Preliminary GCDAMP Preliminary 

FY 10-11 Budget 11 Budget

Dennis Kubly

Technical Work Group Meeting

March 16-17, 2009

Budget Development Process Budget Development Process

 Developed in 2004; passed by AMWG

 Draft budget to identify issues and determine Draft budget to identify issues and determine 

AMWG priorities AMWG priorities

 First year for biennial budget (2010-11)

 BR and GCMRC develop initial budget BR and GCMRC develop initial budget

 Input from CRAHG to BAHG

 BAHG review and recommendation to TWG

 TWG review and recommendation to AMWG

Reclamation Budget Proposal

0

250000

500000

750000

1000000

1250000

AMWG

TWG

Other

P gm tic

Agreem ent

Tribal

Consultation

Dollars

2009 2010 2011

Totals: 2009 $2,389,160

2010 $2,610,844

2011 $2,674,920

AMWG Related

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

Personnel

AMWG Reimb...

Travel

Facilitation

POAHG

Other

Dollars

2009 2010 2011

TWG Related

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

Personnel

TWG Reimburse

Travel

TWG Chair

Other

Dollars

2009 2010 2011

Programmatic Agreement

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

Administration

Treatment Plan

Dollars

2009 2010 2011

Reclamation Budget Proposal FY 2010-11

Total:

2009 $299,118

2010 $308,091

2011 $317,334

Total:

2009 $154,706

2010 $159,347

2011 $164,218

Total:

2009 $560,164

2010 $576,969

2011 $594,278

Other

0 100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

Compliance

NPS Permits

Contracts

Exp Fund

Tribal Resour..

Mainstem N-n ...

N-n Fish Conti...

Dollars

2009 2010 2011

Total:

2009 $900,172

2010 $1,091,436

2011 $1,124,179

Major Proposed Changes Major Proposed Changes

 Mainstem mechanical removal of non-native 

fish funded in Reclamation’s budget to assure s budget to assure 

completion of biological opinion conservation completion of biological opinion conservation 

measure

 Addition of funds by expected CPI increase of Addition of funds by expected CPI increase of 

3% to a non-native control contingency fund

 Addition of funds to the experimental fund and Addition of funds to the experimental fund and 

Canyon treatment plan by expected CPI increase Canyon treatment plan by expected CPI increase 

of 3%
#### Alan R. Varley *v.*Nina B. Varley

*Joseph B. Lukas,*in support of the motion.

Submitted May 20

decided May 21, 1975

The defendant’s motion for permission to file a “pro se” brief in addition to the brief filed by her attorney in the appeal from the Superior Court in Hartford County is denied.
# L_2009350EN.01005901.xml

| 29.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 350/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 350/59

---

Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on credit rating agencies

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 302 of 17 November 2009
  )

On page 27, Annex I, Section C, point 3(c):

for:

for:

| ‘c) | (...), and who is directly involved in the credit rating activities; and’, |
| --- | --- |

‘c)

read:

read:

| ‘c) | (...), and who is not directly involved in the credit rating activities; and’. |
| --- | --- |

‘c)

---
#### Henrietta T. Smigel, as Executrix of John Smigel, Deceased, Respondent, v Town of Rensselaerville, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

— Yesawich, Jr., J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Trial Term (Prior, Jr., J.), entered April 3, 1986 in Albany County, which granted plaintiff’s motion to restore this action to the preferred calendar of the Supreme Court, Albany County.

This wrongful death action, arising out of defendants’ alleged negligence in maintaining an intersection, was commenced in 1979. A note of issue was filed and a preference order granted in 1982. Thereafter, the case was conferenced three times and, following unproductive settlement discussions, marked ready for trial. From that point on the calendar history of this matter, aptly described by Trial Term as "tortured”, is unclear. It appears that in September 1983, after 18 months on the Trial Calendar, the case was stricken because of the failure of plaintiff’s counsel to attend calendar calls. In November of the same year, plaintiff moved for and *848secured a bench decision restoring the case to the calendar. However, plaintiffs counsel was not made aware the matter had been restored until February 1984. In the interim, in January 1984, the case was again stricken from the calendar because of the failure of plaintiffs counsel to answer a calendar call, of which he avers he had no notice. After entry of the February 1984 order restoring the case, plaintiffs counsel maintains he heard nothing from the County Clerk’s office. Further delays occurred when, in April 1984, plaintiffs counsel, a sole practitioner, suffered a debilitating stroke and hospitalization until August 24, 1984. On January 30, 1985, CPLR 3404 was invoked and the case was automatically dismissed. Plaintiffs motion, made returnable September 9, 1985, to again restore the case to the Trial Calendar was granted, prompting this appeal by defendant Town of Rensselaerville. We affirm.

A plaintiff moving to restore a case, following its removal from the Trial Calendar pursuant to CPLR 3404, must adduce proof similar to that required to oppose a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute under CPLR 3216 *(Kunker v Charbonneau Contr. Corp.,*119 AD2d 884). Accordingly, plaintiff was obliged to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious cause of action, sufficient excuse for the delay, and that defendant had not been prejudiced by that delay *(see, Curtin v Grand Union Co.,*124 AD2d 918).

Here, counsel’s affidavit sets forth what appears to be a meritorious cause of action for negligent construction and/or maintenance of the intersection. His disabling illness and a purported understanding that defense counsel would mark the case ready for trial constitutes a reasonable excuse. Finally, and most importantly, the town has not satisfactorily demonstrated how it would be prejudiced by returning this case to the calendar, particularly in view of the requirements Trial Term has imposed upon plaintiffs counsel personally to ensure an early trial.

Order affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Main, Casey, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6389

ANTHONY HARRIS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

J. PHILIP MORGAN; MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:18-cv-01024-GLR)

Submitted: May 25, 2021 Decided: May 28, 2021

Before DIAZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Harris, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 petition as procedurally defaulted. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A 

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find 

the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck 

v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional 

right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Harris’ informal brief, we

conclude that Harris has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also 

Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important 

document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that 

brief.”). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

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
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-30318

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

versus

RAY A. BRIGHT,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:11-CV-1518

Before JONES, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In this case involving default on student loans, Ray Bright, appealing

pro se, challenges, inter alia, the denial of his motion for relief from judgment

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 26, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 13-30318 Document: 00512387779 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/26/2013
No. 13-30318

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). In its Order and Reasons, the district court carefully explained that it was denying Rule 60 relief, but only without prejudice, because it was premature. The discharge of indebtedness that

Bright had been granted was conditional in that it “will be reinstated if you do

not meet certain requirements during a post-discharge monitoring period . . . for

three years from . . . June 28, 2012.” The court also explained why Bright was

not entitled to have his record sealedSSa denial of which he also complains on

appealSSbecause he had not complied with the applicable local rules regarding

sealing.

The judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons given by the

district court.

2

 Case: 13-30318 Document: 00512387779 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/26/2013
#### Eisenlord, Appellant, *v.*Eisenlord *et al.,*Respondents.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department.*

July 7, 1890.)

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. See 2 N. Y. Supp. 123.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D20-2842

_____________________________

CHRISTI LONG,

Appellant,

v.

REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE 

APPEALS COMMISSION,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission.

Frank E. Brown, Chairman.

September 30, 2021

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, MAKAR, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Christi Long, pro se, Appellant.

Amanda L. Neff, Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF INTERNET AMERICA, INC. FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           3,304
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,312
<ALLOWANCES>                                       100
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,644
<PP&E>                                           5,786
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,474
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,719
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,094
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            71
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,261
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,719
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,839
<CGS>                                            3,150
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,452
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  37
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,576)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,576)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,576)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.22)


</TABLE>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ANTHONY CLARKE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-3337

[February 21, 2019]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Martin S. Fein, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 10-6746 CF10C.

Anthony Clarke, Raiford, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, C.J., WARNER and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Frank J. Blangiardo, Respondent, v Richard Horstmann, Appellant, and Nassau Point Property Owners Association, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendant.

Submitted February 20, 2007;

decided April 26, 2007

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.