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



 Exhibit 4.1 
  






 
 MeiraGTx Holdings plc SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS THIS CERTIFICATE IS TRANSFERABLE IN CITIES DESIGNATED
BY THE TRANSFER AGENT AVAILABLE ONLINE AT www.computershare.com INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES LAW (2018 REVISION) OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS CUSIP G59665 10 2 THIS CERTIFIES THAT IS THE RECORD HOLDER OF BY: FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE ORDINARY SHARES, $ PAR VALUE PER SHARE, OF MeiraGTx Holdings plc COUNTERSIGNED AND transferable on the books of the Company in person or by duly authorized attorney on surrender of this Certificate
properly endorsed. This certificate shall not be valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar. COMPUTERSHARE Witness the facsimile signature of the Company’s duly authorized officer.TRUSTREGISTERED: Dated:
COMPANY, AUTHORIZED AND N A . TRANSFER . CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SIGNATURE REGISTRAR AGENT 







 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	  		 	 under Uniform Gifts to Minors

		  				  	survivorship and not as tenants	  		 	Act.........................................
		  				  	in common	  		 	 (State)


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

For Value Received, ______________________________________________________hereby sell(s), assign(s) and transfer(s) unto 

 

					
	PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE	 		 	
	 		
	 	 		 	

  
  

(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE) 

 
  
  

 
  

 
 Ordinary Shares represented by the within Certificate
and do(es) hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________Attorney to transfer the said shares 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(S) AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.

 Signature(s) Guaranteed 
  

			
	 	  	
	  
 THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR
INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.
Micah Joel Ahkeem Iverson KELLY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8560.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 21, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Announcing 

LabCFTC Office Hours

March 22, 2018  CFTC New York Regional Office

140 Broadway, New York, NY 10005

Industry Engagement At Its Best.

As part of our ongoing effort to engage with innovators 

and facilitate market-enhancing fintech innovation, 

LabCFTC will be holding Office Hours in New York.

LabCFTC is the focal point for the CFTC's efforts to promote 

market-enhancing fintech innovation and fair competition for 

the benefit of the American public. LabCFTC is designed to 

make the CFTC more accessible to fintech innovators, and 

serves as a platform to inform the Commission's understanding

of new technologies. 

Office Hours provide the fintech community the opportunity to 

engage with LabCFTC in general conversation, discuss a 

specific question or issue, or give a presentation.

For more information or to schedule an appointment contact: LabCFTC@cftc.gov
Ashur HIDOU, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 17-5061.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          86,766
<SECURITIES>                                     7,326
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,377
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     18,931<F1>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               148,972
<PP&E>                                          14,873
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 362,014
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           44,450
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        100
<COMMON>                                           272
<OTHER-SE>                                     310,167
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   362,014
<SALES>                                         26,330
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,330
<CGS>                                           11,652
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,652
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,834
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 254
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,324
<INCOME-TAX>                                       414
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                910
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       910
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
<FN>
<F1>Includes raw material inventory of $2,709.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10.10(c)



September 12, 2003



Addendum to lease dated March 14, 1994 by and between Fred B. Caffey, of Martinsville, Virginia herein referred to as Lessor and Hooker Furniture Corporation,
of Martinsville, Virginia, herein referred to as Lessee. All portions of the said lease will be continued until October 31, 2004. Only exceptions are stated below:



Article Two



Term, Rent, and Option



Lessor leases his property known as Caffey Warehouse located at 71 Gallagher Road off Highway 58 east of Martinsville to Lessee. The rent being $22,500 per month the rate
being 18 cents per square foot per month. The rent is due and payable on the first of each month to lessor at 407 Starling Avenue Martinsville, Virginia 24112. Lessee has the option to renew with a 90 day notice to Lessor.



|       |  |  |  |  |  |                       |  |               
|------ |  |  |  |  |  | --------------------- |  | --------------
|       |  |  | 
|Lessor |  |  |  |  |  | /s/    Fred
B. Caffey
|       |  |  |  |  |  |                       | 
|       |  |  |  |  |  |                       |  | Fred B. Caffey





|       |  |  |  |  |  |                       |  |                                                                
|------ |  |  |  |  |  | --------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|       |  |  | 
|Lessee |  |  |  |  |  | /s/    E. Larry Ryder
|       |  |  |  |  |  |                       | 
|       |  |  |  |  |  |                       |  | E. Larry Ryder Senior Vice President Finance and Administration
James H. DICKEY, petitioner, v. Christine SAMUEL.

No. 17-7570.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 21, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7310

CHARLES A. SMITH, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.

(CA-00-389-3)

Submitted: November 9, 2000 Decided: November 15, 2000

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles A. Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles A. Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s memorandum and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. See Smith v. Director, No. CA-00-

389-3 (E.D. Va. Aug. 15, 2000). 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
Orlando BATISTA, petitioner, v. OHIO.

No. 17-8254.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Ohio denied.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

February 1, 2008 

135650 & (3)(4) 

In re: 

Anonymous Judge. 

_________________________________________/ 

Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

 SC: 135650 

On order of the Court, the motions to seal the file and maintain confidentiality and 

for immediate consideration are GRANTED. The petition for interim suspension without 

pay is considered, and it is DENIED. 

p0130 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

February 1, 2008 

Clerk
#### *J.*H. Culberson *v.*The State.

Theft—Indictment.—The ownership of the property alleged to be stolen-must be averred in the indictment, or a sufficient reason stated for its omission, such, as that the owner is to the grand jurors unknown.

Appeal from the District Court of Kerr. Tried below before the Hon. T. M. Paschal.

No brief for the appellant.

*325
      *George McCormick,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State,

submitted the case upon the record.

White, J.

The indictment in this case charges the defendant with the theft of a dun gelding, whose owner was unknown. Things, to be the subject of larceny, must have an owner in fact, though he may doubtless be unknown to the thief, as clearly he may be to the grand jury who indict him. 2 Bishop’s Cr. Law, sec. 800.

An indictment for larceny must allege what is called the ownership of the property, unless some excuse appears and is averred for the omission, such as that the owner is to the grand jurors unknown. 2 Bishop’s Cr. Proc., sec. 718, citing 1 Bishop’s Cr. Proc., sec. 54 *et seq.*

The indictment in this case is a good one, under the rules above laid down. An examination of the facts, however, does not, in the opinion of this court, warrant the verdict and judgment of conviction rendered in the lower court. There is no positive testimony going to establish the defendant’s guilt in the theft of the animal alleged to have been stolen, and the preponderance of the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, is decidedly in favor of the defense set up by him, to wit, that he had purchased the horse in San Antonio.

We cannot give our assent to a conviction rendered upon the testimony in this case. It is unnecessary to notice the other points presented. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*
# C_2009256EN.01003501.xml

| 24.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/35

---

Action brought on 28 August 2009 — Bodegas y Viñedos Puerta de Labastida v OHIM — Unión de Cosecheros de Labastida (PUERTA DE LABASTIDA)

(Case T-345/09)

2009/C 256/62

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bodegas y Viñedos Puerta de Labastida, SL (Autol, Spain) (represented by: J. Grimau Muñoz and J. Villamor Muguerza, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Unión de Cosecheros de Labastida, S. Coop. Ltda (Labastida, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 28 May 2009 in Case R 1021/2008-1, allowing the application for registration of ‘PUERTA DE LABASTIDA’ (word mark) as a Community trade mark for Classes 29, 33 and 35; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 28 May 2009 in Case R 1021/2008-1, allowing the application for registration of ‘PUERTA DE LABASTIDA’ (word mark) as a Community trade mark for Classes 29, 33 and 35;

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: BODEGAS Y VIÑEDOS PUERTA DE LABASTIDA S.L.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘PUERTA DE LABASTIDA’ (Application No 4473278) for goods and services in Classes 29, 33 and 35.

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: UNIÓN DE COSECHEROS DE LABASTIDA, S. COOP. LTDA.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word mark ‘CASTILLO DE LABASTIDA’ (No 617 137) for goods in Class 33; Community word mark ‘CASTILLO LABASTIDA’ (No. 23 382) for goods in Class 33; and Community word mark ‘CASTILLO LABASTIDA’ (No 3 515 566) for services in Classes 35, 39 and 43.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 42 and 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark.

Pleas in law:

---
Exhibit 32.1

                                                                  ------------

 

ALPHATRADE.COM

A Nevada corporation

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

        In connection with the Annual Report of AlphaTrade.com. (the"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, Gordon Muir, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

        Dated: May 7, 2010                          /s/Gordon J. Muir

----------------------------------------------

Chief Executive Officer, President, Chairman,

                        andDirector
# C_2011311EN.01004201.xml

| 22.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — Ergo Versicherungsgruppe v OHIM — DeguDent (ERGO)

(Case T-382/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ERGO - Prior Community and national word marks CERGO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Duty to rule on the entirety of the action - Scope of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal - Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

2011/C 311/76

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ergo Versicherungsgruppe AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, A.W. Renck, T. Dolde and J. Pause, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: B. Schmidt, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: DeguDent GmbH (Hanau, Germany) (represented by: initially W. Blau, then W. Blau, D. Kaya and C. Kusulis, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 July 2009 (Case R 44/2008-4) concerning opposition proceedings between DeguDent GmbH and Ergo Versicherungsgruppe AG

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 23 July 2009 (Case R 44/2008-4) in so far as the Board of Appeal omitted to rule on the action brought before it as regards the goods in Class 5 |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 23 July 2009 (Case R 44/2008-4) in so far as the Board of Appeal omitted to rule on the action brought before it as regards the goods in Class 5

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders Ergo Versicherungsgruppe AG, DeguDent Gmbh and OHIM to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Ergo Versicherungsgruppe AG, DeguDent Gmbh and OHIM to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.

1

---
Michael J. PENCE, et ux., petitioners, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY.

No. 16-1478.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One denied.
Richard Max FLEMING, petitioner, v. IOWA BOARD OF MEDICINE, et al.

No. 16-9473.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit denied.
Waseem DAKER, petitioner, v. GEORGIA.

No. 16-9530.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1



                    CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 on Form 10-K of GenTek Inc. (the "Company")
for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Richard R. Russell, as Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, and Matthew R. Friel, as Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 'SS' 1350,
as adopted pursuant to 'SS' 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of his knowledge:

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

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

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to GenTek Inc. and will be retained by GenTek Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


/s/  Richard R. Russell
     -------------------------------
     Richard R. Russell
     Chief Executive Officer
     March 31, 2003

/s/  Matthew R. Friel
     -------------------------------
     Matthew R. Friel
     Chief Financial Officer
     March 31, 2003


This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to 'SS' 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
'SS' 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D20-683

_____________________________

MAURICE CAMPBELL,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus—Original Jurisdiction.

September 22, 2020

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. See Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).

B.L. THOMAS, OSTERHAUS, 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

Maurice Campbell, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
To
      The
      Board of Directors


Skystar
      Bio-Pharmaceutical Company








Consent
      of Independent Accountants


Skystar
      Bio-Pharmaceutical Company


Audited
      Financial Statements


December
      31, 2006








We
      consent to the incorporation in the Annual Report of Skystar Bio-Pharmaceutical
      Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB and in the Company’s Form S-8
      Registration Statements (File No. 333-101679 filed on December 6, 2002, and
      File
      no. 333-132136 filed on March 1, 2006) of our report dated May 17, 2007 on
      our
      audit of the financial statements of Skystar Bio-Pharmaceutical Company and
      Subsidiary as of December 31, 2006, and for the year then ended, which our
      reports are incorporated in the Form 10-KSB.






/s/
      Moore
      Stephens Wurth Frazer and Torbet,
      LLP


Moore
      Stephens Wurth Frazer and Torbet, LLP




Walnut,
      California


May
      18,
      2007