alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex_256425.htm


Exhibit 4.1


 


 


 


DESCRIPTION OF SECURITIES


 


 


 


Authorized Capital Stock


 


Our authorized capital stock consists of 100,000,000 shares of Common Stock, par value $0.001 per share, and 1,000,000 shares of Preferred Stock, par value $0.001 per share.


 


Common Stock


 


Each share of common stock entitles a stockholder to one vote on all matters upon which stockholders are permitted to vote. No stockholder has any preemptive right or other similar right to purchase or subscribe for any additional securities issued by us, and no stockholder has any right to convert the common stock into other securities. No shares of common stock are subject to redemption or any sinking fund provisions. All the outstanding shares of our common stock are fully paid and non-assessable. Subject to the rights of the holders of the preferred stock, if any, our stockholders of common stock are entitled to dividends when, as and if declared by our board from funds legally available therefore and, upon liquidation, to a pro-rata share in any distribution to stockholders. We do not anticipate declaring or paying any cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future.


 


Preferred Stock


 


Pursuant to our Certificate of Incorporation, as amended, our board has the authority, without further stockholder approval, to provide for the issuance of up to 1,000,000 shares of Preferred Stock, par value $0.001 per share, in one or more series and to fix the number of shares included in each such series and the variations in the relative rights, preferences and limitations as between series.


 


Of the 1,000,000 shares of authorized Preferred Stock, 100 shares are designated Series A Preferred Stock, with a par value of $100.00 per share. As designated, the Holder(s) of the Series A shares, as a class, have rights in all matters requiring stockholder approval to a number of votes equal to two (2) times the sum of: (1) the total number of shares of Common Stock which are issued and outstanding at the time of any election or vote by the stockholders; plus (2) the number of shares of Preferred Stock issued and outstanding of any other class that has voting rights, if any. The shares of Series A Preferred Stock are not entitled to any conversion, redemption or dividend rights. In the event of liquidation, dissolution or winding up of the company, the holder(s) of the Series A Preferred Stock will be entitled to receive out of the assets of the company, prior and in preference to any distribution of the assets or surplus funds of the company to the holders of any other class of preferred stock or the Common Stock, the amount of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per share, and will not be entitled to receive any portion of the remaining assets of the company except by reason of ownership of shares of any other class of the company’s stock.
# C_2021194EN.01000601.xml

| 21.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/6

---

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Case M.9660 – Google/Fitbit

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 194/04)

On 15 June 2020, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation (2) by which Google, LLC (‘Google’) would acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of Fitbit, Inc. (‘Fitbit’) by way of purchase of shares (the ‘Proposed Transaction’).

On 8 July 2020, I admitted Privacy International as interested third person pursuant to Article 18(4), second sentence, of the Merger Regulation, Articles 11(c) and 16(1) of the Merger Implementing Regulation (3), and Article 5 of Decision 2011/695/EU.

On 4 August 2020, the Commission initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation (‘Article 6(1)(c) Decision’).

On 21 August 2020, Google submitted written comments on the Article 6(1)(c) Decision.

On 2 September 2020, I admitted BEUC, The European Consumer Organisation, as interested third person.

On 22 September and 16 October 2020, the Commission and Google agreed on extensions of the time limit for the Commission’s investigation, pursuant to Article 10(3), second subparagraph, of the Merger Regulation, by a total of 15 working days.

On 28 September 2020, Google submitted commitments in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Merger Regulation in order to address the competition concerns identified by the Commission.

On 29 September 2020, the Commission launched a market test of these commitments. The Commission provided Google with detailed feedback on the outcome of the market tests during several calls in October and early November 2020.

On 4 November 2020, Google submitted revised commitments pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Merger Regulation.

The draft decision declares the Proposed Transaction compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement, subject to full compliance with the revised commitments.

Overall, I consider that the effective exercise of procedural rights has been respected during the present proceedings.

Brussels, 4 December 2020.

Wouter WILS

---

(1)  Pursuant to Articles 16 and 17 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (OJ L 275, 20.10.2011, p. 29) (‘Decision 2011/695/EU’).

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1) (‘Merger Regulation’).

2

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 133, 30.4.2004, p. 1) (‘Merger Implementing Regulation’).

3

---
#### YOUNGS, Appellant, v. NEW YORK, O. & W. R. CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.

May 18, 1894.)

Action by Mary D. Youngs, as administratrix, etc., against the New York, Ontario & Western Railroad Company.

Argued before HARDIN, P. J., and MARTIN and MERWIN, JJ.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
| 1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2009 of Sun Bancorp, Inc.; |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |
|--------|--------|

| Date:  April 30, 2010 | /s/ Thomas X. Geisel                  |
|---------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                            | Thomas X. Geisel                      |
|                            | President and Chief Executive Officer |

----

| 1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2009 of Sun Bancorp, Inc.; |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  April 30, 2010 | /s/ Robert B. Crowl                                              |
|---------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                            | Robert B. Crowl                                                  |
|                            | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer   |
**Exhibit32.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906

 

OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Stephen Forsyth, ChiefExecutive Officer of Medicsight, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that tothe best of my knowledge:

 

(1)    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of theCompany for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.78m or 78o(d)); and

 

(2)    the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
|            | By:    | /s/STEPHEN FORSYTH      |   |
|-----------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|            |   | Stephen Forsyth         |
|            |   | Chief Executive Officer |
| August 13, 2004 |   |                    |

 

1

----
#### Ketcham, Respondent, *v.*Dickerson, Appellant.

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

May 2, 1890.)

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
Listen

# Videos

Please note that the videos below use auto generated closed captioning technology.

Review the YouTube Terms of Service and the Google Privacy Policy.

----

              - November 9, 2021Commission on the Social Status of Black Men and Boys Business Meeting 
              - November 9, 2021Commission on the Social Status of Black Men and Boys Business Meeting 
              - October 25, 2021Civil Rights Implications of Disaster Relief: Hurricane Harvey in Texas - Panel 1 (English) 
              - October 25, 2021Civil Rights and Protections in the Federal Response to Hurricanes Maria and Harvey (Panel 2) 
              - October 25, 2021Civil Rights Implications of Disaster Relief: Hurricane Harvey in Texas - Panel 2 (English) 
              - June 25, 2021Civil Rights and Protections in the Federal Response to Hurricanes Maria and Harvey (Panel 2) 
              - February 26, 2021The Civil Rights Implications of Cash Bail (Panel 1) 
              - February 26, 2021The Civil Rights Implications of Cash Bail (Panel 3) 

-    First  
-    Previous  
-   ...  
-  2 
-  3 
-  4 
-  5 
-  6 
-   ...  
-   Next  
-   Last
##### 



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
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date:      April 2, 2007
    By:
    /s/ PETER W. NAUERTPeter W. NauertChairman of the Board of Directors,
President and Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-164910 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-31751, 333-67265, 333-62618, 333-107462, 333-118041, 333-136406, 333-144462 and 333-164599 on FormS-8 of our report dated March 29, 2010, relating to the consolidated financial statements of NMT Medical, Inc. and subsidiaries appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of NMT Medical, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

Boston, Massachusetts 

March 29, 2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIOD ENDED AUGUST 31, 1998,
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1998
<CASH>                                             498
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   498
<PP&E>                                           3,890
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,735)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 410,429
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,251
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           157
<OTHER-SE>                                     189,681
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   410,429
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,752
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,471
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,223)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,223)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 22

- 00223

- CV
In the Matter of the Marriage of Xavier Arrisola and Lindsay Denise Roschet z ky and in the Interest of X.B.A.
On Appeal from the 36th District Court of Bee County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. B

- 21

- 1143

- C V

- A

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant. We f u rther order this decision certified below for observance. July 21, 2022
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ovidio Jeff, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.), rendered October 19, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his present claim that the testimony of Detective Sanchez as to the circumstances surrounding the defendant’s arrest constituted improper bolstering of the complainant’s identification testimony *(see, People v Love,*57 NY2d 1023).

The defendant’s further contention that this claimed improper bolstering was aggravated by Sanchez’s testimony that he "pulled the case from the file” when the defendant was brought to the station house on the date of the lineup, is without merit. The court promptly cut off Sanchez’s testimony before he in any way connected the contents of the case file to the defendant. Moreover, the court’s swift interruption of this testimony prevented any possible improper bolstering of the complainant’s identification testimony or other undue prejudice to the defendant.

Finally, the defendant’s sentence is not excessive and appellate modification is unwarranted *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2146 Engrossed Amendment Senate (EAS)]

                  In the Senate of the United States,

                                                          June 4, 2015.
    Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 
2146) entitled ``An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
allow Federal law enforcement officers, firefighters, and air traffic 
controllers to make penalty-free withdrawals from governmental plans 
after age 50, and for other purposes.'', do pass with the following

                               AMENDMENT:

            On page 3, strike lines 9 through 11 and insert the 
      following:

    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to distributions after December 31, 2015.

            

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
114th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H.R. 2146

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENT
```
#### Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc., Appellant, v Joseph Petito, Respondent.

In an action to recover a sum due and owing on a personal guarantee, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (DiPaola, J.), dated April 23, 1986, as, upon reargument, adhered to its prior determination in an order of the same court, dated February 18, 1986, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the action for failure to timely serve a complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the order of February 18, 1986 is vacated, the defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied, the action reinstated, and the verified complaint is deemed served, on condition that the plaintiff’s attorneys personally pay the defendant the sum of $500 within 15 days after service upon them of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry; in the event that condition is not complied with, the order is affirmed, with costs; in the event the condition is complied with, the defendant’s time to serve an answer is extended until 20 days after compliance.

In view of the apparent merit to the action, the absence of any intent to abandon the action, the facts that the delay in serving the complaint was neither willful nor protracted and that the defendant has not been prejudiced thereby, as well as *669the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits, the plaintiff should not have been deprived of its day in court *(see, Rait v Bauer,*121 AD2d 704; *Katz v Knoesel Serv. Center,*117 AD2d 781; *Belsky v Lowell,*117 AD2d 575, 576; *Wilenski v Auricchio Monuments,*102 AD2d 824, 825). However, in view of the dilatoriness of the plaintiffs attorneys in failing to serve the complaint for some *3Vi*months after the denial of the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the ground that the issue had not been joined, and their failure to move pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d) for an extension of time in which to serve the complaint, we have fixed an appropriate sanction *(see, Katz v Knoesel Serv. Center, supra).*Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Harwood, JJ., concur.
#### GAMBLE v. LENNON.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department,

July, 1896.)

Action by Annie Gamble, as administratrix, against William Lennon.

No opinion. Motion denied; but papers must be served by August 31st. See 41 N. Y. Supp. 277.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                         Consent of Independent Auditors

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-13875, No. 333-58173, No. 333-43992, No.
333-108324), pertaining to the Non-Plan Options, the 1996 Equity Incentive Plan,
as amended, and the Non-Employee Directors' Stock Option Plan, as amended, of
our report dated February 27, 2004 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Hot Topic, Inc. included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2004.


                                                          /s/  Ernst & Young LLP

Los Angeles, California
April 2, 2004
EXHIBIT 32.1

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT


     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  each of the  undersigned  officers of Patient
Infosystems, Inc. (the "Company"), certifies that:

     (1)  the Annual  Report on Form  10-KSB of the  Company for the fiscal year
          ended  December  31,  2003  (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the
          requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
          of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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



Dated:   March 30, 2004        /s/Roger L. Chaufournier
      -----------------        --------------------------------------------
                               Roger L. Chaufournier
                               Chief Executive Officer


Dated:   March 30, 2004        /s/Kent A. Tapper
      -----------------        --------------------------------------------
                               Kent A. Tapper
                               Vice President, Financial Planning
                               (principal accounting officer)

     This  certification  is made  solely for the  purpose of 18 U.S.C.  Section
1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.
# L_2014106EN.01004401.xml

| 9.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 106/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 106/44

---

Corrigendum to Council Decision 2010/284/EU of 19 January 2010 on the existence of an excessive deficit in the Czech Republic

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 125 of 21 May 2010
  )

In the contents and on page 36, in the title:

for:

‘Council Decision of 19 January 2010 on the existence of an excessive deficit in the Czech Republic (2010/284/EU)’,

read:

‘Council Decision of 2 December 2009 on the existence of an excessive deficit in the Czech Republic (2010/284/EU)’;

on page 37, concluding formula:

for:

‘Done at Brussels, 19 January 2010.

For the Council

The President

E. SALGADO
  ’,

read:

‘Done at Brussels, 2 December 2009.

For the Council

The President

A. BORG
  ’.

---
#### In re CURTISS’ ESTATE.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 20, 1896.)

Judicial settlement of the accounts and of the proceedings of Frank Curtiss and Frederick De Billier, as executors of and trustees under the last will and testament of Abijah Curtiss, deceased.

No opinion. Order resettled and order signed. See supra.