alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed by Automated Filing Services Inc. (604) 609-0244 - The Cavalier Group - Exhibit 4.1





 THE CAVALIER GROUP 

  INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF WYOMING

  AUTHORIZED SHARES $0.001 PAR VALUE 

	 NUMBER  	 SHARES  
	  	 CUSIP 149506 10 7  

    
	  	 See Reverse For Certain Definitions  


 THIS CERTIFIES THAT 


Is The Owner of 


FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF $0.001 PAR VALUE COMMON 


STOCK OF 

 THE CAVALIER GROUP 

 transferable on the books of the Corporation in person or by
  duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed.
  This Certificate and the shares represented hereby are subject to the laws of
  the State of Wyoming, and to the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of the
  Corporation, as now or hereafter amended. This certificate is not valid unless
  countersigned by the Transfer Agent. 

 WITNESS, the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the signatures
  of its duly authorized officers. 


Dated: 

	    /s/    Gerald 
      W. Williams	 Seal  	    /s/    Gerald 
      W. Williams
	 

      Secretary  	 President  











 THE CAVALIER GROUP 

 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 law or regulations: 

TEN COM - as tenants in common 

  TEN ENT - as tenants by the entireties 

  JT TEN - as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common
  

  UNIF GIFT MIN ACT - ____________________ Custodian ____________________

  (Minor) under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act _________________ (State) 

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

 For Value Received, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto


	 
	 
	 (Please
      insert name and/or Social Security or other identifying number of Assignee). 
    
	 
	 
	 (Please
      print or typewrite name and address, including zip code of Assignee) 
	 
	 
	 
	_________________________________shares
      of the capital stock of _____________________________________________________
	represented by the within Certificate,
      and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint  
	 
	___________________________________________________________
      Attorney to transfer the said stock  on the books of the within-named
      Corporation, with full power of substitution in the premises.  
	 
	Dated at _____________________________
      , this  day of ______________ , 200__.  
	 




	 X  	  
	 (Signature of Assignor / Transferor) 



Notice: The signature to this Assignment must correspond with the name as written upon the face of this certificate in every particular, without alteration or enlargement or any change whatsoever. The signature(s) must be guaranteed by an eligible
guarantor institution (Banks, Stockbrokers, Savings and Loan Associations and Credit Unions with membership 

 Signature(s) Guaranteed by: 

 

 


__________________________________
 (Bank, Trust Company or Broker-Dealer) 

 TRANSFER FEE WILL APPLY
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7743

TROY A. GROSS-BEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

F. C. SIZER, JR., Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.

(CA-98-883-JFM)

Submitted: April 15, 1999 Decided: April 19, 1999

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Troy A. Gross-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Regina Hollins Lewis, Assistant Attorney General,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Troy Gross-Bey seeks to appeal the district court’s order

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

1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district

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

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Gross-Bey v. Sizer, No. CA-98-

883-JFM (D. Md. Oct. 30, 1998). 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
ARIZONA 

#7 #9 3.4% $2,723 #7 #19 #20

$20.2 B SPENT IN 5.3% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. PER RESIDENT $17.9 B CONTRACT 45,160 NUMBER OF $2.3 B PERSONNEL 

STATE DEFENSE SPENDING SPENDING PERSONNEL SPENDING 

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

Research and

Development: 

and

nt: 57% 

Service: 14%

Construction: 25%

4% 

Supplies 

Equipme

By Service 

Army

Navy/Marines

18%

Air Force

11%

Other Defense

22%

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Allocations, By Type

Reserve: 16%

National 

Guard: 18%

Civilian: 22%

Allocations, By Service 

Army

Navy/Marines

15%

Air Force

Other Defense

3%

Top Defense Contractors (M = millions, B = billions)

Raytheon $7.1 B 

Boeing $2.2 B 

Fisher Sand & Gravel $1.8 B 

Barnard ConstrucƟon Co. Inc. $1.3 B 

Southwest Valley Constructors Co. $876.7 M 

Honeywell $816.2 M 

Northrop Grumman $504.6 M 

General Dynamics $393.1 M 

Raytheon/Lockheed MarƟn $216.2 M 

Rural Electric Inc. $146.2 M 

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

$17.9

$12.0 $10.9 $11.1 

FY13

$8.9 $8.5 $8.5

$5.8

FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

$2.3 BILLION 45,160

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

50%

Active Duty: 44%

38%

44%

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active

Duty

Civilian National

Guard

Reserve Total

Maricopa 5,387 2,573 3,710 5,116 16,786

Pima 6,489 2,904 2,519 1,612 13,524

Cochise 3,926 2,738 49 191 6,904

Yuma 3,762 1,323 63 36 5,184

Pinal 22 159 742 482 1,405

Coconino 13 46 448 ND ND

Yavapai 15 ND 197 0 ND

Graham 0 0 40 0 40

Navajo 0 0 40 0 40

Apache ND ND 0 0 ND

22 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020
FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018

(M=millions)

(M=millions) (M=millions)

ARIZONA 

FISCAL YEAR 2020 

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS 

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions, B = billions)

Pima

Maricopa

Yuma

Cochise

Pinal

Yavapai

Mohave

Coconino

Graham

La Paz

(K = thousands, M = millions)

$10.8 B 

$4.8 B 

$1.6 B 

$744.6 M 

$15.3 M 

$12.0 M 

$5.4 M 

$4.2 M 

$1.9 M 

$1.1 M 

Maricopa

Pima

Cochise

Yuma

Pinal

Coconino

Yavapai

Navajo

Graham

La Paz

$747.7 M 

$746.0 M 

$443.0 M 

$256.9 M 

$33.2 M 

$15.1 M 

$5.5 M 

$735.4 K 

$609.9 K 

$158.9 K 

Coconino

Mohave

Yavapai

La Paz

Maricopa

Yuma Pinal Graham

Pima

Cochise

Coconino

Navajo

Yavapai

La Paz

Maricopa

Yuma Pinal Graham

Pima

Cochise

Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS

23
STATE of North Carolina v. Ervy L. JONES, Jr.

No. 123A95-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2006.

Ervy L. Jones, Pro Se.

Edward W. Grannis, Jr., District Attorney, for State.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 17th day of November 2005 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Cumberland County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of January 2006."

Justice BRADY recused.
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States
Code



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Navigant
Consulting, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2003, as amended by the Form 10-K/A of the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ben W. Perks, Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that:



|(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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/S/ BEN W. PERKS                                    
|Ben W. Perks                                        
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



Date: December 28, 2004
# L_2017105EN.01002101.xml

| 21.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 105/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 105/21

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/302 of 15 February 2017 establishing best available techniques (BAT) conclusions, under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, for the intensive rearing of poultry or pigs

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 43 of 21 February 2017
  )

On page 257, point 2.1 Ammonia emissions from pig houses:

for:

| ‘10. | Littered pens with combined manure generation (slurry and solid manure). |
| --- | --- |

‘10.

Littered pens with combined manure generation (slurry and solid manure).

Farrowing sows

Not applicable to existing plants without solid concrete floors.’

| 11. | Feeding/lying boxes on solid floor (in case of litter-based pens). |
| --- | --- |

11.

Feeding/lying boxes on solid floor (in case of litter-based pens).

Mating and gestating sows

read:

| ‘10. | Littered pens with combined manure generation (slurry and solid manure). |
| --- | --- |

‘10.

Littered pens with combined manure generation (slurry and solid manure).

Farrowing sows

May not be generally applicable to existing plants due to technical and/or economic considerations.

| 11. | Feeding/lying boxes on solid floor (in case of litter-based pens). |
| --- | --- |

11.

Feeding/lying boxes on solid floor (in case of litter-based pens).

Mating and gestating sows

Not applicable to existing plants without solid concrete floors.’

on page 277, point 4.13.1 Techniques for reducing ammonia emissions from houses for laying hens, broiler breeders or pullets:

for:

| ‘Manure removal by belts (in case of enriched or unenriched cage systems) with at least:






  — | one removal per week with air drying; or |
| --- | --- |

‘Manure removal by belts (in case of enriched or unenriched cage systems) with at least:

—

one removal per week with air drying; or

| — | two removals per week without air drying. |
| --- | --- |

—

two removals per week without air drying.

Belts are placed under the cages for manure removal. The frequency of removal can be once every week (with air drying) or more (without air drying). The collection belt may be ventilated for drying the manure. Whisk-forced air drying in the manure belt can be also used.’

read:

| ‘Technique | Description |
| --- | --- |
| Manure removal by belts (in case of enriched or unenriched cage systems) with at least:






  — | one removal per week with air drying; or |

‘Technique

Description

Manure removal by belts (in case of enriched or unenriched cage systems) with at least:

—

one removal per week with air drying; or

| — | two removals per week without air drying. |
| --- | --- |

—

two removals per week without air drying.

Belts are placed under the cages for manure removal. The frequency of removal can be once every week (with air drying) or more (without air drying). The collection belt may be ventilated for drying the manure. Whisk-forced air drying in the manure belt can be also used.’

---
IN RE E.F.C.K.

No. COA05-440.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed January 3, 2006.

Certification Date January 23, 2006.

Appeal from Forsyth (03J271).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT SCOTT J. BIZZELL, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-886 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed September 12, 2018. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Tom Barber, Judge. Scott J. Bizzell, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Galindez v. State, 955 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 2007); Tucker v. State, 726 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 1999); Knight v. State, 6 So. 3d 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

CRENSHAW, MORRIS, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-11178

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

BURVON KING, also known as Chocolate,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:92-CR-141-16

Before BARKSDALE, CLEMENT, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Burvon King, federal prisoner # 21029-077, appeals the district court’s

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) sentence-reduction motion. (He has filed

several such motions previously.) King’s brief is virtually identical to the motion

filed in district court. The brief fails to identify any error in the denial of his

§ 3582(c)(2) motion. Although a pro se brief is afforded liberal construction, e.g.,

Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993), when appellant fails to

identify any error in the district court’s analysis, it is the same as if appellant

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 31, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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

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

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-11178 Document: 00512258965 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/31/2013
No. 12-11178

has not appealed that issue, Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner,

813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). King has abandoned the only issue on appeal

by failing to brief it adequately. E.g., Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25.

AFFIRMED. 

2

 Case: 12-11178 Document: 00512258965 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/31/2013
Exhibit 10.3

November 9, 2005



Mr. Pierre Duhamel

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



| | Re: | AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
| | --- | ---------------------------------



Dear Pierre,



I am pleased to confirm that Teleglobe International Holdings Ltd (Teleglobe) has approved the following
changes, effective November 1, 2005, to your employment agreement dated January 10, 2005 (Agreement):



1) Incentive Compensation: With respect to 2005, the target performance level shall be 140% of base salary, retroactive to January
1, 2005.



2) Termination: The target
bonus set out in clause (c) of the section regarding Termination shall be amended from 100% of base salary to 140% of base salary.



Except as amended above, the terms and conditions of the Agreement are hereby ratified and confirmed, and shall remain in full force and effect.



Please indicate your acceptance of these terms and conditions
by signing this letter and returning the original copy to Nicole Lemay, Vice President, Human Resources.



Thank you for your continued contributions and commitment to the success of Teleglobe.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|Best regards,                        
|                                     
|/s/    LIAM STRONG                   
|Liam Strong                          
|President and Chief Executive Officer



|cc: | Nicole Lemay, VP, Human Resources
|--- | ---------------------------------



I accept the conditions described in this letter.



|                                 |  |                       
|-------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|Signature: /s/    PIERRE
DUHAMEL |  | Date: November 9, 2005
Exhibit 10.66



 






Exhibit 10.66




FIFTH AMENDMENT

TO

STATE AUTO FINANCIAL CORPORATION

2000 DIRECTORS STOCK OPTION PLAN




     The State Auto Financial Corporation 2000 Directors Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”), as
heretofore amended, is hereby further amended in the following particulars:



§1. Definitions




     All capitalized terms used in this amendment which are not otherwise defined herein shall have
the respective meanings given such terms in the Plan.



§2. Shares Subject To Plan



     As of the effective date of this amendment, no additional Options shall be granted under the
Plan, including without limitation, no Options shall be granted following the 2005 annual meeting
of shareholders of the Company. Except for shares of Stock subject to unexercised Options granted
prior to the date of this amendment that have not expired or otherwise terminated, all shares of
Stock reserved for issuance under the Plan are hereby released from such reserve. Without limiting
and in furtherance of the preceding provisions, if any shares of Stock currently subject to an
Option cease to be subject to that Option other than by reason of exercise, such shares shall not
be used for any future Option grant and shall not be reserved for subsequent issuance under to the
Plan.



§3. Effective Date; Construction



     The effective date of this amendment is May 11, 2005, and this amendment shall be deemed to be
a part of the Plan as of such date. In the event of any inconsistencies between the provisions of
the Plan and this amendment, the provisions of this amendment shall control. Except as modified by
this amendment, the Plan shall continue in full force and effect without change.
STATE v. CARAWAY

No. COA05-945

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed February 7, 2006

Certification Date February 27, 2006

Appeal from Durham (04CRS40377, 04CRS40378).

Case reported without published opinion. Appeal dismissed.
STATE v. ROSS

No. COA05-431

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed March 21, 2006

Certification Date April 10, 2006

Appeal from Halifax (04CRS52718).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-20318

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DONAL MONTA AMERSON, also known as Money,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:10-CR-306-1

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Donal Monta Amerson has moved 

for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Amerson has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief 

and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

 

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

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

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 8, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-20318 Document: 00513108175 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/08/2015
No. 14-20318

2

appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 14-20318 Document: 00513108175 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/08/2015
STATE of North Carolina v. Ernest Keith JORDAN.

No. 711P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2006.

Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., Southern Pines, for Ernest Keith Jordan.

Marc X. Sneed, Assistant Attorney General, Robert F. Johnson, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 20th day of December 2005 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of January 2006."
CLARK v. SANGER CLINIC, P.A.

No. COA05-705

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed February 7, 2006

Certification Date February 27, 2006

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. #333197).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
******Exhibit 4.5**

  

CONSENT OF CHRISTIAN D’AMOURS 

** **

 Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended February 28, 2010 (the “Annual Report”) of Virginia Mines Inc. (the “Company”), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

I participated, as an independent Qualified Person (as such term is defined in Canadian National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects), in the preparation of an independent technical study, completed in 2003 (the “Technical Study”) concerning mineralized material in the Poste Lemoyne Extension property for the Company. Portions of the Technical Study are summarized under the heading “Item III– Description of the Business – 3.1 Poste Lemoyne Extension Property – 3.1.5 Exploration and Drilling” in the Annual Information Form of the Company for the year ended February 28, 2010 (included as Exhibit 1 of the Annual Report, which Exhibit is incorporated by reference therein) and under the heading “Poste Lemoyne Extension Property” in the Management’s Discussion and Analysis of the Company for the year ended February 28, 2010 (included as Exhibit 3 of the Annual Report, which Exhibit is incorporated by reference therein). I hereby consent to the inclusion of the foregoing written disclosure and to the references to such disclosure and to my name under the foregoing headings and to all other references to such disclosure and to my name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report. 

  

Very truly yours,

*/s/ Christian D’Amours*Name: Christian D’Amours

  

May 19, 2010
EXHIBIT 32







CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Premier Alliance Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Mark S. Elliott, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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 result of operations of the Company.





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








/s/ Mark S. Elliott


Mark S. Elliott


Chief Executive Officer


January 04 , 2012