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

                                                                    Exhibit 14.1

                                U.S. MEDSY CORP.

                                 CODE OF ETHICS

                           Adopted September 30, 2004

To further the Company's fundamental principles of honesty, loyalty, and
fairness, the Company's Board of Directors (the "Board") has established and
adopted this Code of Ethics (this "Code"). This Code strives to deter its Senior
Financial Officers, including its principal executive officer, principal
financial officer, principal accounting officer or persons performing similar
functions, from any wrongdoing and to promote professional and ethical conduct.
To the best of their knowledge and ability, the Senior Financial Officers shall:

-     act with honesty and integrity including the ethical handling of actual or
      apparent conflicts of interest between personal and professional
      relationships;

-     comply with applicable governmental laws, rules and regulations;

-     provide full, fair, accurate, timely, and understandable disclosure in
      reports that the Company files with or submits to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission and in other public communications;

-     promote the prompt internal reporting of violations of this Code of Ethics
      to the Board;

-     respect the confidentiality of information acquired in the course of
      employment; and

-     be accountable for adherence to this Code of Ethics.

The Code of Ethics is subject to periodic review by the Board in order to meet
any changes in the laws the activities of the Company and to support the
interests and protection of the investors. The Board shall be authorized to
determine the appropriate actions taken in the event of a violation of this Code
of Ethics by any Senior Financial Officer.
#### SMITH v. McRARY

No. 180 PC.

Now No. 91 PA 82.

Case below: 56 N.C. App. 634.

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 3 March 1982.
Case 7:07-cv-03232-CS-LMS     Document 20      Filed 07/02/2008     Page 1 of 1
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 September 12, 2019

Order 

Clerk

September 12, 2019

160067(61)

EESAM ARABBO, Plaintiff-Appellant, SC: 160067

v COA: 341713

Genesee CC: 2016-107043-CZ

CITY OF BURTON, PAULA ZELENKO,

STEPHEN HEFFNER, THOMAS

MARTINBIANCO, and MICHAEL JOLIAT, Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendants-appellees to extend the time 

for filing their answer is GRANTED. The answer will be accepted as timely filed if 

submitted on or before September 30, 2019.
#### CONSUMERS POWER v. POWER CO.

No. 87.

Reported: 285 N.C. 434.

Petition by plaintiffs to rehear denied 9 September 1974.
Exhibit 14.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent
to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-111303, 333-34420 and 333-73650), pertaining to the Jacada Ltd. 2003 Share Option and Incentive Plan, the Jacada Ltd. 1999 Share Option and Incentive
Plan, the Jacada Ltd. 1996 Share Option Plan and to the Jacada Ltd. 1994 Stock Option Plan, of our report dated March 31, 2010 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Jacada Ltd. included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for
the year ended December 31, 2009.



|                 |  |                                 
|---------------- |  | --------------------------------
|Tel-Aviv, Israel |  | KOST, FORER, GABBAY and KASIERER
|                 | 
|March 31, 2010   |  | A member of Ernst & Young Global
#### STATE v. WESSON

No. 131 PC.

Case below: 16 N.C. App. 683.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 6 February 1973.
le-ex45_269.htm



 

EXHIBIT 4.5

DESCRIPTION OF THE REGISTRANT’S SECURITIES 

REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12 OF THE 

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Lands’ End, Inc. has one class of securities registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended: our Common Stock.

DESCRIPTION OF COMMON STOCK

The following description of our Common Stock is a summary and does not purport to be complete. It is subject to and qualified in its entirety by reference to our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation (the “Certificate of Incorporation”) and our Amended and Restated Bylaws (the “Bylaws”), each of which are incorporated by reference as exhibits to the Annual Report on Form 10-K.  We encourage you to read our Certificate of Incorporation, our Bylaws and the applicable provisions of the Delaware General Corporation Law, as amended, for additional information.   

Authorized Shares of Capital Stock 

Our authorized capital stock consists of 480,000,000 shares of common stock, $0.01 par value per share (“Common Stock”).  As of January 31, 2020, there were 32,381,612 shares of Common Stock outstanding.  The outstanding shares of our Common Stock are fully paid and nonassessable.

Listing

Our common stock is listed and principally traded on The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC under the symbol “LE”.

Voting Rights

Holders of Common Stock are entitled to one vote per share on all matters voted on by the stockholders, including the election of directors. Our Common Stock does not have cumulative voting rights.

Dividend Rights

The holders of Common Stock are entitled to receive dividends, if any, as may be declared from time to time by the Board of Directors in its discretion out of funds legally available for the payment of dividends.

Liquidation Rights

Holders of Common Stock will share ratably in all assets legally available for distribution to our stockholders in the event of dissolution.

Other Rights and Preferences

Our Common Stock has no sinking fund or redemption provisions or preemptive, conversion or exchange rights. Holders of Common Stock may act by unanimous written consent. 

Transfer Agent and Registrar

Computershare Investor Services is the transfer agent and registrar for our common stock.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .


                                                                    Exhibit 12.1

Northern Border Pipeline Company
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                               2001      2002      2003      2004      2005
                                             -------   -------   -------   -------   -------
<S>                                          <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
Fixed charges:
Interest expensed and capitalized             56,262    51,550    44,903    41,374    42,792
Estimate of interest within rental expense       362       276       272       236       272
                                             -------   -------   -------   -------   -------
Total fixed charges                           56,624    51,826    45,175    41,610    43,064
                                             -------   -------   -------   -------   -------

Earnings:
Pretax income from continuing operations     140,458   142,719   148,200   166,777   152,246
Fixed charges                                 56,624    51,826    45,175    41,610    43,064
                                             -------   -------   -------   -------   -------
Total earnings                               197,082   194,545   193,375   208,387   195,310
                                             -------   -------   -------   -------   -------
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges              3.48      3.75      4.28      5.01      4.54
                                             =======   =======   =======   =======   =======
</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

..................................................................... X 

IN RE: Fosamax Products Liability 

Litigation, 1:06-md-1789 (JFK) Order ----------------------.------------.-- X 

This Document Relates to: All Actions : 

...................................... x 

JOHN F. KEENAN, United States District Judge: 

Section 2(a) of the Court's practices generally 

requires a pre-motion conference before a party may make any 

motion. This requirement is hereby waived with respect to 

motions to remand filed in this multi-district litigation because 

the jurisdictional issues typically raised by such motions can be 

resolved more efficiently without a conference. Accordingly, it 

is ORDERED that plaintiffs may file motions to remand without 

first requesting a pre-motion conference. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: New York, New York 

November / 4, 2007 

\, 

JOHN F. KEENAN 

United States District Judge 

Case 1:07-cv-03296-JFK Document 10 Filed 11/14/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-3 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 1 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-3 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 2 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-3 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 3 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-3 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 4 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-3 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 5 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-3 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 6 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-3 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 7 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-3 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 8 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-3 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 9 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-3 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 10 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-3 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 11 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-3 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 12 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-3 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 13 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-3 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 14 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-3 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 15 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-3 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 16 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-3 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 17 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 49-3 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 18 of 18
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-50484

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FERNANDO RAMIREZ-CORRAL,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:09-CR-140-1

Before KING, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Fernando RamirezCorral has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Ramirez-Corral has not filed a

response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no

nonfrivolous issue for appeal. 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 11, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

Case: 09-50484 Document: 00511048546 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/11/2010
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 Annual Report of Qorus.com,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB/A for the period  ending  December 31, 2003 as filed with the  Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the  undersigned
officers of the Company  hereby  certify,  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 our 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.

Dated this 7th day of June 2004


/s/ Patrick J. Haynes, III
Patrick J. Haynes, III
President and Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Thomas C. Ratchford
Thomas C. Ratchford
Principal Accounting Officer

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
         other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
         signature that appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of
         this written  statement  required by Section 906, has been  provided to
         Qorus.com,  Inc. and will be retained by Qorus.com,  Inc. and furnished
         to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                       26
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 19 Filed 06/03/2008 Page 1 of 1
# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 12-3820

___________________________ Teresa Lynette Bloodman lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v. Rhonda Wood, Circuit Court Judge for the Tw entieth Judicial District of Arkansas, in her official and individual capacity; C ody Hiland, Individually and in his official

capacity as Prosecuting Attorney for the Tw entieth Judicial District of Arkansas; Joan Shipley, Individually and in her official capacity as Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for the Twentieth Judicial District of Arkansas lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock

____________ Submitted: June 17, 2013 Filed: June 24, 2013 [Unpublished]

____________ Before MURPHY, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM.Teresa Bloodman appeals the district court’s 1 with-prejudice dismissal of her civil complaint. We conclude that the di strict court did not abuse its discretion in determining that abstention would beappropriate under Younger v. Harris , 401 U.S. 37 (1971). See Plouffe v. Ligon , 606 F.3d 890, 892-93 (8th Cir. 2010) (Younger abstention doctrine provides that federa l courts should abstain from exercising jurisdiction when (1) there is ongoing state proceeding, (2) which implicates important state interests, and (3) there is adequate opportunity to raise relevant federal questions in state proceeding). Accord ingly, we modify the dismissal to be without prejudice, see Anderson v. Schultz , 871 F.2d 762, 766 (8th Cir. 1989) (dismissal without prejudice is appropriate where court abstains under Younger ), and affirm the dismissal as modified. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, Un ited States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2-
Case 1:07-cv-03525-PKL     Document 6      Filed 04/11/2008     Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-03525-PKL     Document 6      Filed 04/11/2008     Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 17-11 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-03459-JFK Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 1 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03459-JFK Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 2 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03459-JFK Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 3 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03459-JFK Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 4 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03459-JFK Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 5 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03459-JFK Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 6 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03459-JFK Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 7 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03459-JFK Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 8 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03459-JFK Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 9 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03459-JFK Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 10 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03459-JFK Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 11 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03459-JFK Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 12 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03459-JFK Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 13 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03459-JFK Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 14 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03459-JFK Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 15 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03459-JFK Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 16 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03459-JFK Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 17 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03459-JFK Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 18 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03459-JFK Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 19 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03459-JFK Document 1 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 20 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03495-SHS Document 14 Filed 11/28/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE v. HINSON

No. 132 PC.

Case below: 17 N.C. App. 25.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 18 January 1973.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 7083** 

REGINALD BROWN , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. MCKITHER BODISON , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence
. Patrick Michael Duffy , Senior District Judge. ( 4:09

- cv - 01755

- PMD )

Submitted : December 7, 2010 Decided: December 23, 2010

Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Regin ald Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
R eginald Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismiss ing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifica te of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits , a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U .S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional r ight. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently review ed the record and conclude that Brown has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because th e facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 26 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 1 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 26 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 2 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 26 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 3 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 26 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 4 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 26 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 5 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 26 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 6 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 26 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 7 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 26 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 8 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 26 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 9 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 26 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 10 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 26 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 11 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 26 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 12 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 26 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 13 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 26 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 14 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 26 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 15 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 26 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 16 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 26 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 17 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 26 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 18 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 26 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 19 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 26 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 20 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 26 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 21 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 26 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 22 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 26 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 23 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 26 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 24 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 26 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 25 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 26 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 26 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 26 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 27 of 28
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 26 Filed 07/31/2008 Page 28 of 28
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

APPOINTMENT TO THE 

PENNSYLVANIA INTEREST ON 

LAWYERS TRUST ACCOUNT BOARD

:

:

:

:

:

No. 164

DISCIPLINARY RULES DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of July, 2018, the Honorable Stephanie A. Domitrovich, 

Erie County, is hereby appointed as a member of the Pennsylvania Interest on Lawyers 

Trust Account Board for a term of three years, commencing September 1, 2018.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 26, 2012 

p0319 

Order 

 

March 26, 2012 

144127 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 144127 

 COA: 297670 

Oakland CC: 2009-228759-FC 

KEYON DEWAYNE TIMMONS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 27, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.