alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exhibit_4-8.htm


 


 


EXHIBIT 4.8


 


[FORM OF BENEFICIAL OWNER ELECTION FORM]


 


FORM OF BENEFICIAL OWNER ELECTION


 


     The undersigned acknowledge(s) receipt of your letter and the enclosed materials referred to therein relating to the offering (the “ Rights Offering ”) to purchase Units (the “ Units ”) consisting of one share of common stock and a three-year warrant to purchase 0.5 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $4.00 per share by stockholders of record (“ Record Date Stockholders ”) as of 5:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time, on [     ], 2010 (the “ Record Date ”).


 


     With respect to any instructions to exercise (or not to exercise) the Rights, the undersigned acknowledges that this form must be completed and returned such that it will actually be received by you by 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on [     ] , 2010, the last business day prior to the scheduled expiration date of the Rights Offering of  [     ] , 2010 (which may be extended by the Company in its sole discretion).


 


     This will instruct you whether to exercise Rights to purchase Units distributed with respect to the shares of the Company’s common stock, $0.0001 par value, held by you for the account of the undersigned, pursuant to the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Prospectus and the related Subscription Rights Certificates.


 


     Box 1.  ̈ • Please DO NOT EXERCISE RIGHTS for Units.


 


     Box 2.  ̈ • Please EXERCISE RIGHTS for Units as set forth below.


 


     The number of Rights for which the undersigned gives instructions for exercise under the Basic Subscription Rights should not exceed the number of Rights that the undersigned is entitled to exercise.



	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  	  	
Per Unit

	  	  
	  	  	
Number of Units

	  	
Subscription Price

	  	
Payment


	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
	
Basic Subscription Right

	  	  	
[          ]

	
X

	  	
$

	
[          ]

	
= 

	  	
$

	
                    

	
(Line 1) 


	
Over-Subscription Right

	  	  	
[          ]

	
X

	  	
$

	
[          ]

	
= 

	  	
$

	
                    

	
(Line 2) 


	
Total Payment Required

	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	
$

	
                    

	  
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	
(Sum of Lines 1 and 2 must equal total of amounts in Boxes 3 and 4)







 


     Box 3. o • Payment in the following amount is enclosed $          .


 


     Box 4. o • Please deduct payment from the following account maintained by you as follows:



	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	
Type of Account:

	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	
Account No.:

	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	
Amount to be deducted:          $

	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	
Signature:

	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	
Name:

	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	
Title:

	  	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  	  	  	  
	  	  	
Date:               , 2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          27,409
<SECURITIES>                                    16,126
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,837
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,456
<INVENTORY>                                        313
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,159
<PP&E>                                           7,873
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,955
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  63,799
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,988
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        33,630
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,754)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    63,799
<SALES>                                         16,253
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,253
<CGS>                                            3,262
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,262
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,643
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,906
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,110)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,796
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,796
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8121

HELFRIED E. SARTORI, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-01-573-AM) Submitted: April 25, 2002 Decided: May 6, 2002 Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Helfried E. Sartori, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Helfried Sartori seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, while we grant Sartori’s motion to supplement, we deny his motions for appointment of counsel and for a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Sartori v. Angelone , No. CA-01-573-AM (E.D. Va., filed Nov. 13, 2001; entered Nov. 14, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6949

DARRELL W. COOK, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; ROBERT G. O’HARA, Judge, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (CA-04-146) Submitted: October 7, 2004 Decided: October 14, 2004 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darrell W. Cook, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Paul Christopher Galanides, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Darrell W. Cook, Jr., a Virginia prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) without prejudice for failure to comply with a previous court order. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cook has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny his pending motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 57 

To amend the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 to permit 

eligibility in certain circumstances for an officer or employee of a foreign 

government to receive a reward under the Department of State Rewards 

Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 6, 2009 

Mr. KIRK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 

1956 to permit eligibility in certain circumstances for 

an officer or employee of a foreign government to receive 

a reward under the Department of State Rewards Program. 

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 ‘‘Terrorist Rewards En5 hancement Act of 2009’’. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 57 IH

1 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES FOR AN 

2 AGENCY OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO RE3 CEIVE A REWARD UNDER THE DEPARTMENT 

4 OF STATE REWARDS PROGRAM. 

5 (a) ELIGIBILITY.—Subsection (f) of section 36 of the 

6 State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 

7 U.S.C. 2708(f)) is amended— 

8 (1) by striking ‘‘(f) INELIGIBILITY.—An offi9 cer’’ and inserting the following: 

10 ‘‘(f) INELIGIBILITY.— 

11 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para12 graph (2), an officer’’; and 

13 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

14 paragraph: 

15 ‘‘(2) EXCEPTION IN CERTAIN CIR16 CUMSTANCES.—The Secretary may pay a reward to 

17 an officer or employee of a foreign government (or 

18 any entity thereof) who, while in the performance of 

19 his or her official duties, furnishes information de20 scribed in such subsection, if the Secretary deter21 mines that such payment satisfies the following con22 ditions: 

23 ‘‘(A) Such payment is appropriate in light 

24 of the exceptional or high-profile nature of the 

25 information furnished pursuant to such sub26 section. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
3 

•HR 57 IH

1 ‘‘(B) Such payment may aid in furnishing 

2 further information described in such sub3 section. 

4 ‘‘(C) Such payment is formally requested 

5 by such agency.’’. 

6 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Subsection (b) of 

7 such section (22 U.S.C. 2708(b)) is amended in the mat8 ter preceding paragraph (1) by inserting ‘‘or to an officer 

9 or employee of a foreign government in accordance with 

10 subsection (f)(2)’’ after ‘‘individual’’. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed October 11, 2017.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D17-1302

Lower Tribunal No. 14-15785

________________

M.P., the Mother,

Appellant,

vs.

Department of Children and Families, et al.,

Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Mark

Blumstein, Judge.

Eugene F. Zenobi, Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Third

Region, and Kevin Coyle Colbert, Assistant Regional Counsel, for appellant.

Karla Perkins, for the Department of Children and Families; Wendie

Michelle Cooper, Beth Kathryn Roland and Thomasina F. Moore (Sanford), for the

Guardian ad Litem Program, for appellees.

Paula Velazquez, Attorney ad Litem for A.D., minor child.

Before SALTER, FERNANDEZ and LINDSEY, JJ.

FERNANDEZ, J.
M.P., the mother, appeals the trial court’s Order Denying the Motion to Set

Aside and Vacate the Final Judgment of Termination of Parental Rights, entered

after M.P.’s failure to attend the adjudicatory hearing on the petition. We affirm

the trial court’s denial, finding no abuse of discretion.

After M.P.’s failure to attend the adjudicatory hearing, the trial court entered

an implied consent to termination, pursuant to section 39.801(3)(d), Fla. Stat.

(2016), and proceeded to receive evidence that supported the termination of M.P.’s

parental rights, as alleged in the Department of Children and Families’ petition.

Thereafter, the trial court entered a final judgment terminating M.P.’s parental

rights as to her two minor children. M.P. moved to vacate the default/implied

consent judgment, which the trial court denied because M.P. failed to prove a

meritorious defense to section 39.806(1)(e)3, Fla. Stat. (2016).

We review the trial court’s order denying M.P.’s Motion to Set Aside and

Vacate the Final Judgment of Termination of Parental Rights under an abuse of

discretion standard. C.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 990 So. 2d 520,

522-523 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). A motion to set aside a final judgment of termination

of parental rights must establish “due diligence, demonstrate excusable neglect,

and demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense to the termination petition.”

Fla. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs. v. P.E., 14 So. 3d 228, 236 (Fla. 2009),

2
citing to In re A.N.D. 883 So. 2d 910, 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) and E.S. v. Dep’t of

Children & Family Servs., 878 So. 2d 493, 496 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004).

After the hearing on the motion, the trial court found that M.P. failed to

establish a meritorious defense as to Paragraph 20 of the Petition for Termination

of Parental Rights, which alleged that the children “have been in care for any 12 of

the last 22 months and the Mother has not substantially complied with the case

plan so as to permit reunification.” See § 39.806(1)(e)(3), Fla. Stat. (2016).

Accordingly, the trial court properly denied the motion. Finding no abuse of

discretion in the trial court’s determination of M.P.’s motion, we affirm the order

denying M.P.’s Motion to Set Aside and Vacate the Final Judgment of Termination

of Parental Rights.

Affirmed.

3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          10,370
<SECURITIES>                                    31,404
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,072
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,623
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                74,978
<PP&E>                                          20,424
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,032
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 100,789
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           54,750
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           126
<OTHER-SE>                                      44,034
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   100,789
<SALES>                                          8,538
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,083
<CGS>                                            1,927
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,377
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,506
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    69
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,562
<INCOME-TAX>                                       500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,062
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,062
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Raymond W. Kolodziej, Appellant-Respondent, v Philip D. Smolinski et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of Erie County, Respondents, and Steven Pigeon, Respondent-Appellant. In the Matter of Raymond W. Kolodziej, Appellant-Respondent, v Philip D. Smolinski et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of Erie County, Respondents, and Steven Pigeon, Respondent-Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. (Appeals from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Fallon, J.—Election Law.) Pres*519ent — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Davis, JJ. (Order entered Aug. 21, 1987.)
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 6730

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
JONTAVIOUS KYREE LYONS , Defendant

- Appellant

.

No. 21

- 6731

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
JONTAVIOUS KYREE LYONS , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Catherine C. Eagles , District Judge. ( 1:18

- cr - 00052

- CCE

- 2 ; 1:18

- cr - 00254

- CCE

- 1 ; 1:20

- cv - 00376

- CCE

- LPA )

Submitted : September 9, 2021 Decided: September 14, 20212 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Jontavious Kyree Lyons , Appellant Pro Se

.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Jontavious Kyree Lyons seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on Lyons’ 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. 1 We dismiss the appeal s for lack of jurisdiction because Lyons failed to file a timely notice of appeal. When the United States or its officer or agency is a par ty in a civil case , the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B) , unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or re opens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court entered its order on June 10, 2020

. Lyons filed a notice of appeal , at the earliest, on March 31, 2021. 2 Because Lyons failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal s
.

1 Although Lyons was charged and convicted in two separate criminal cases, t he district court issued a single order denying Lyons’ present § 2255 , which listed the case numbers for both cases.

2 For purposes of these appeals, we assume that the date on Lyons’ notice of appeal
w as the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court

. See Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (establishing prison mailbox rule).4 We dispense with oral argument because the facts an d legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2361 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2361

   To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authority to 
  provide work-study allowance for certain activities by individuals 
 receiving educational assistance by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 15, 2015

  Mr. Takano (for himself and Mr. Wenstrup) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authority to 
  provide work-study allowance for certain activities by individuals 
 receiving educational assistance by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Work-Study for Student Veterans 
Act''.

SEC. 2. WORK-STUDY ALLOWANCE.

    Section 3485(a)(4) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``June 30, 2013'' each place it appears and inserting ``June 
30, 2020''.
                                 <all>
```
In the Senate of the United States, 

September 30, 2015. 

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 2617) entitled ‘‘An Act to amend the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 to postpone a scheduled increase in 

the minimum wage applicable to American Samoa.’’, do pass 

with the following 

AMENDMENTS: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 

following: 

1 SECTION 1. MINIMUM WAGE FOR AMERICAN SAMOA. 

2 (a) MINIMUM WAGE.—Paragraph (2) of section 

3 8103(b) of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 (29 U.S.C. 

4 206 note) is amended to read as follows: 

5 ‘‘(2) the minimum wage applicable to American 

6 Samoa under section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor 

7 Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) shall 

8 be— 
2 

† HR 2617 EAS 

1 ‘‘(A) the applicable wage rate in effect for 

2 each industry and classification as of September 

3 29, 2015; and 

4 ‘‘(B) increased by $0.40 an hour (or such 

5 lesser amount as may be necessary to equal the 

6 minimum wage under section 6(a)(1) of such 

7 Act), beginning on September 30, 2015, and on 

8 September 30 of every third year thereafter, until 

9 the minimum wage applicable to American 

10 Samoa under this paragraph is equal to the 

11 minimum wage set forth in such section.’’. 

12 (b) GAO REPORTS.—Section 8104 of the Fair Min13 imum Wage Act of 2007 (29 U.S.C. 206 note) is amended— 

14 (1) in subsection (a)— 

15 (A) by striking ‘‘September 1, 2011’’ and 

16 inserting ‘‘April 1, 2017’’; and 

17 (B) by striking the second sentence and in18 serting the following: ‘‘The Government Account19 ability Office shall submit a subsequent report 

20 not later than April 1, 2020.’’; 

21 (2) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘the study 

22 under subsection (a)’’ and inserting ‘‘any report 

23 under subsection (a)’’; and 

24 (3) by adding at the end the following: 
3 

† HR 2617 EAS 

1 ‘‘(c) REPORT ON ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF IN2 CREASING THE MINIMUM WAGE IN AMERICAN SAMOA.—Not 

3 later than 1 year after the date of enactment of ‘An Act 

4 to amend the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 to reduce 

5 a scheduled increase in the minimum wage applicable to 

6 American Samoa’, the Government Accountability Office 

7 shall transmit to Congress a report on alternative ways of 

8 increasing the minimum wage in American Samoa to keep 

9 pace with the cost of living in American Samoa and to 

10 eventually equal the minimum wage set forth in section 

11 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 

12 206(a)(1)).’’. 

13 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This Act, and the amendments 

14 made by this Act, shall take effect as of September 29, 2015. 

Amend the title so as to read: ‘‘An Act to amend the 

Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 to reduce a scheduled 

increase in the minimum wage applicable to American 

Samoa.’’. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H.R. 2617 

AMENDMENTS