alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.2

    NUMBER                                                    SHARES



                           BANCORP RHODE ISLAND, INC.

                    NON-VOTING COMMON STOCK--$.01 PAR VALUE

This Certifies that SPECIMEN is the owner of ____________________________
                                              Bancorp Rhode Island, Inc.
Shares of the Capital Stock of transferable only on the books of the
Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by Attorney upon surrender of
this Certificate property endorsed.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Corporation has caused this Certificate to be
signed by its duly authorized officers and its Corporate Seal to be hereunto
affixed this _____________day of _____________ A.D.________________


                                      SEAL


______________________________                   ______________________________
President                                        Treasurer
<PAGE>   2

The securities represented by this certificate are issued subject to all the
provisions of the Articles of Incorporation and By-laws of Bancorp Rhode
Island, Inc. (the "Corporation") as from time to time amended (copies of which
are on file at the main office of the Corporation), to all of which the holder
by acceptance hereof assents.

The Corporation is authorized to issue more than one class of series of capital
stock. The Corporation will furnished to any stockholder, upon request and
without charge, a full statement of the designations, preferences, limitations,
and relative rights of the shares of each class or series authorized to be
issued.

The shares represented by the certificate have been acquired for investment
and have not been registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and
may not be offered, sold or otherwise transferred pledged or hypothecated
unless and until such shares are registered under such Act or an opinion of
counsel satisfactory to the Corporation is obtained to the effect that such
registration is not required.


                           Bancorp Rhode Island, Inc.


                                  Certificate

                                      FOR



                                     SHARES

                                 CAPITAL STOCK

                                   ISSUED TO

                                    SPECIMEN

                                     DATED


     For Value Received, ________ hereby sell, assign and transfer unto

_________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________ Shares

of the Capital Stock represented by the within Certificate, and do

hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint

_________________________________________________________________________

to transfer the said Stock on the books of the within named Corporation with

full power of substitution in the premises.

     Dated _______________________________
                In presence of

                                     ____________________________________
William Thomas ZEIGLER, Jr., petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 17-5861.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
# L_2013345EN.01000101.xml

| 19.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 345/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 345/1

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 133/2013

of 8 July 2013

amending Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Articles 86 and 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | It is appropriate to continue the cooperation of the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement in Union actions funded from the General Budget of the Union regarding the implementation, operation and development of the Internal Market. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

It is appropriate to continue the cooperation of the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement in Union actions funded from the General Budget of the Union regarding the implementation, operation and development of the Internal Market.

| (2) | Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended in order to allow for this extended cooperation to continue beyond 31 December 2012, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended in order to allow for this extended cooperation to continue beyond 31 December 2012,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Article 7 of Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement shall be amended as follows:

| (1) | the words ‘years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012’ in paragraph 6 shall be replaced by the words ‘years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013’; |
| --- | --- |

(1)

the words ‘years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012’ in paragraph 6 shall be replaced by the words ‘years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013’;

| (2) | the words ‘years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012’ in paragraph 7 shall be replaced by the words ‘years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013’; |
| --- | --- |

(2)

the words ‘years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012’ in paragraph 7 shall be replaced by the words ‘years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013’;

| (3) | the words ‘years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012’ in paragraph 8 shall be replaced by the words ‘years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013’. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

the words ‘years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012’ in paragraph 8 shall be replaced by the words ‘years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013’.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on 9 July 2013, or on the day following the last notification under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement (*1), whichever is the later.

It shall apply from 1 January 2013.

Article 3

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 8 July 2013.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Thórir IBSEN

---

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4279 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4279

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 445 Main Street in Laceyville, Pennsylvania, as the ``Melinda Gene 
                        Piccotti Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. MELINDA GENE PICCOTTI POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 445 Main Street in Laceyville, Pennsylvania, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Melinda Gene Piccotti Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Melinda 
Gene Piccotti Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 5, 2020.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
116th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4279

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 445 Main Street in Laceyville, Pennsylvania, as the ``Melinda Gene 
                        Piccotti Post Office''.
```
CITY OF BLOOMFIELD, NEW MEXICO, petitioner, v. Jane FELIX, et al.

No. 17-60.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 16, 2017.

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

Justice GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
John Earl McFADDEN, Jr., petitioner, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.

No. 17-286.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 10, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.
Paul V. BURDULIS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5775.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 10, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7101

ROBERT LINDSEY, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THOMAS MCBRIDE, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,

District Judge. (CA-02-1467-2)

Submitted: November 18, 2004 Decided: November 29, 2004

Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Lindsey, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr.,

Dawn Ellen Warfield, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST

VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Robert Lindsey Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

habeas corpus 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 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 Lindsey has not made the requisite

showing. 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 the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Created with Sketch.Menu Transparency
	Contact Us Search
Search
 Main navigation

      
      About the CFTC
                          The Commission
                        Chairman & Commissioners
                        CFTC Organization
                        Advisory Committees
                        Budget & Performance
                        Privacy at the CFTC
                        Careers
                        Diversity and Inclusion at the CFTC
                        Industry Oversight
                          Industry Filings
                        Trading Organizations
                        Clearing Organizations
                        Data Repositories
                        Intermediaries
                        Market Surveillance
                        Contracts & Products
                        Rules & Rule Amendments
                        Anti-Money Laundering
                        Law & Regulation
                          Commodity Exchange Act & Regulations
                        How Rules Are Made
                        Holding Wrongdoers Accountable
                        Federal Register
                        Public Comments
                        CFTC Staff Letters
                        Office of Technology Innovation
                        Market Data & Economic Analysis
                          Data at CFTC
                        Commitments of Traders
                        Bank Participation Reports
                        Cotton On-Call
                        Financial Data for FCMS
                        Net Position Changes Data
                        Staff Reports
                        Weekly Swaps Report
                        Cleared Margin Reports
                        Office of the Chief Economist
                        Forms & Submissions
                        Learn & Protect
                          Learn & Protect Homepage
                        Enforcement News
                        Check Registration & Disciplinary History
                        Submit a Tip or Compliant
                        RED List
                        Office of Proceedings
                        Learning Resources
                        News & Events
                          Press Releases
                        Public Statements & Remarks
                        Events Carousel Rotation On
              On


Curious About Crypto? Watch Out for Red Flags
    
            Remember, the digital asset marketplace is largely unregulated and fraud is a significant risk. Avoid websites or advisers that display these common red flags.
      
    
  PDF
              DigitalAssetRedFlags.pdf240.07 KB


Resources

CFTC Regulations
	Commodity Exchange Act
	Privacy Policy
	Web Policy
	FOIA
	EEO Statement
	No Fear Act
	Accessibility Statement
	Procurement
	USA.gov
	Glossary

Actions

Search Public Comments
	Submit Tips & Complaints
	Search Industry FilingsWhistleblower.gov
	Office of Technology InnovationInspector GeneralSitemap

HomeCFTC Headquarters
Three Lafayette Centre
1155 21st Street, NW
Washington, DC 20581
202.418.5000
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 21, 2012

d0514 

# Order

May 21, 2012

144559

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144559 COA: 306470 Tuscola CC: 10-011770-FH SCOTT CRAIG STEVENS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the December 8, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
Warren PROSTROLLO, petitioner, v. CITY OF SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA, et al.

No. 16-1459.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 30, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 4.3
  <P>
  February 20, 2000
  <P>
  Mr. Virgil E. Wenger
  Certified Public Accountant
  450 Middlsex Rd.
  Darien, CT 06828
  <P>
  RE: Engagement Letter
  <P>
  Dear Mr. Wenger:
  <P>
  This letter will confirm our commitment to provide you
  with 5,000 Unico (NASD-OTC:UICO) common stock as
  remuneration for a finder's fee in regard to finding
  Richard Hyland, who now is hired by Unico as Director of
  Business Development.  We appreciate your successful
  effort and look forward to a long standing business
  relationship with you.  Once again, thank you.
  <P>
            Very truly yours,
  <P>
            By: /s/ Jay Weppler
                -------------------
                    Jay R. Weppler
                    Chairman
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 20-0237

_________________

KOLE FITZPATRICK, DBA FITZPATRICK 

TRUCKING,

 Plaintiff and Appellant,

 v.

TRAIL CREEK ENTERPRISES, LLC, JASON 

SUBATCH, WESTERN STATES EQUIPMENT 

COMPANY ("CAT"), AND JOHN DOES 1-60,

 Defendants and Appellees,

TRAIL CREEK ENTERPRISES, LLC AND JASON 

SUBATCH,

 Counter-Plaintiffs and Appellees.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable Deborah Kim Christopher, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 16 2020

12/16/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0237
Steve AUSTIN, Jr., petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 17-5667.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 30, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District denied.
Franklin H. WRIGHT, aka Jesse F. Swartz, aka Yutz McDougal, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5659.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 30, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
David J. WIDI, Jr., petitioner, v. NEW HAMPSHIRE.

No. 17-7339.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire denied.
# L_2010062EN.01003401.xml

| 11.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 62/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 62/34

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 140/2009

of 4 December 2009

amending Annex IV (Energy) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex IV to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 81/2009 of 3 July 2009 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex IV to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 81/2009 of 3 July 2009 (1).

| (2) | Commission Decision 2007/74/EC of 21 December 2006 establishing harmonised efficiency reference values for separate production of electricity and heat in application of Directive 2004/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Decision 2007/74/EC of 21 December 2006 establishing harmonised efficiency reference values for separate production of electricity and heat in application of Directive 2004/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following point shall be inserted after point 28 (Regulation (EC) No 1099/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council) of Annex IV to the Agreement:

| ‘29. | 32007 D 0074: Commission Decision 2007/74/EC of 21 December 2006 establishing harmonised efficiency reference values for separate production of electricity and heat in application of Directive 2004/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 32, 6.2.2007, p. 183).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘29.

32007 D 0074: Commission Decision 2007/74/EC of 21 December 2006 establishing harmonised efficiency reference values for separate production of electricity and heat in application of Directive 2004/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 32, 6.2.2007, p. 183).’

Article 2

The text of Decision 2007/74/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 5 December 2009, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 4 December 2009.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Oda Helen SLETNES

---

(1)  
  OJ L 277, 22.10.2009, p. 32.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 32, 6.2.2007, p. 183.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
Richard D. DAVIS, III, petitioner, v. FOLSOM CORDOVA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.

No. 16-1389.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 4, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE NINE
MONTH PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       6,626,000
<SECURITIES>                                 3,516,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,657,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   486,000
<INVENTORY>                                 13,540,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            34,627,000
<PP&E>                                       4,618,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,155,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              39,275,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,387,000
<BONDS>                                      3,152,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       141,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  30,523,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                39,275,000
<SALES>                                     28,177,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            28,177,000
<CGS>                                        8,406,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,406,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            16,266,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                90,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (54,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,559,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,559,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,559,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .26


</TABLE>
Dewey Keith VENABLE, petitioner, v. Travis McCOY, et al.

No. 17-5888.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2017.

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