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





EXHIBIT 4.5





DESCRIPTION OF THE REGISTRANT’S COMMON STOCK
REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12 OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
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 Third Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation (the “Articles of Incorporation”) and our Second Amended and Restated Bylaws (the “Bylaws”), each of which are incorporated by reference as an exhibit to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of which this Exhibit 4.1 is a part. We encourage you to read our Articles of Incorporation and our for additional information.
Authorized Capital Shares
Our authorized capital consist of 600,000,000 shares of Class A common stock with a par value of $0.0001 (“Class A Common Stock”), 20,000,000 shares of Class C common stock with a par value of $0.0001 per share (“Class C Common Stock”) and 1,000,000 shares of preferred stock with a par value of $0.0001 per share (“Preferred Stock”). The outstanding shares of our Class A Common Stock are fully paid and nonassessable.
Voting Rights
Subject to the rights of holders of outstanding shares of Preferred Stock, the holders of Class A Common Stock and Class C Common Stock are entitled to one vote per share on all matters voted on by the stockholders, including the election of directors. Our Class A Common Stock and Class C Common Stock do not have cumulative voting rights.
Dividend Rights
Subject to the rights of holders of outstanding shares of Preferred Stock, if any, the holders of Class A 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
Subject to any preferential rights of outstanding shares of Preferred Stock, holders of the Class A 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 Class A Common Stock has no sinking fund or redemption provisions or preemptive, conversion or exchange rights. Holders of Class A Common Stock may not act by unanimous written consent.
Listing
The Common Stock is traded on The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC under the trading symbol “CDEV.”
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

VERONA MAXCINE WYNDHAM, ) DOC #Y28274, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-3508 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ________________________________ ) Opinion filed September 11, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Charlotte County; George C. Richards, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Julius J. Aulisio, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
----

| (1) | The      quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30,      2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)      or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C 78m(a) or      78o(d); and |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date:  August      14, 2008 |   | By:    | /s/      Robert T. Strong                         |
|---------------------------------------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
|                                  |   |   | Robert      T. Strong                             |
|                                  |   |   | President      and Chief Executive Officer        |
|                                  |   |   |                                              |
|                                  |   |   |                                              |
| Date:  August      14, 2008 |   | By:    | /s/      Diane J. Colyer                          |
|                                  |   |   | Diane      J. Colyer                              |
|                                  |   |   | Operations      Officer                           |
|                                  |   |   | (principal      financial and accounting officer) |

----
v . 

MONTANA FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT, The Honorable John W. Larson, presiding, 

Respondent. 

p

State of Montana 

ORDER 

By petition filed March 11, 2022, Belgrade School District No. 1 (School District) 

petitions this Court for exercise of supervisory control in the underlying matter of Western 

Montana Mental Health Center v. Belgrade School District, Cause No. DV-20-682, 

Montana Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, for extraordinary review of the 

District Court's December 2, 2020 denial of the School District's Motion to Dismiss and 

February 28, 2022 Amended Order on summary judgment. See February 28, 2022, 

Arnended Order Regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; Plaintiff's 

Motion for Surnmary Judgment on Counterclaim; and Defendant's Motion for Summary 

Judgment; December 2, 2020 Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The School 

District asserts that the court erroneously failed to grant the School District's Motion to 

Dismiss and failed to address disputed issues of law on summary judgment, instead 

improperly reserving them for determination by a jury at trial. School District asserts that 

the underlying plaintiff can prove no set of facts to support its claims of breach of contract 

or breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and that there are no disputed 

material facts, arguing that the only contested matters are purely legal issues related to the 

interpretation of the underlying contract. 

The School District asserts that exercise of supervisory control is warranted 

pursuant to M. R. App. P. 14(3)(a) and Stokes v. Mont. Thirteenth Judicial Dist. Ct., 2011 
P. 14(7)(c). 

Upon review of the Petition, Motion, and supporting documents, we find that the 

petitioner has shown sufficient cause to require a summary response pursuant to M. R. 

App. P. 14(7). Therefore, pursuant to M. R. App. P. 14(7), 

IT IS ORDERED that the District Court and plaintiff/respondent Western Montana 

Mental Health Center are hereby granted fifteen (15) days from the date of this Order to 

respectively file a sumrnary response, if any, to the petition. 

The Clerk of this Court is hereby directed to provide immediate notice of this Order 

to the Montana Fourth Judicial District Court in the underlying matter of Western Montana 

Mental Health Center v. Belgrade School District, Cause No. DV-20-682; the Honorable 

John W. Larson, presiding; and all counsel of record. 

DATED this /7"kday of March, 2022. 

/94 xi 44, 

Justice 

2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 18

- 13792 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:17

- cr - 00014

- MW

- GRJ

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus KEITH J ELKS, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida

_____________________ ___ (May 1, 2019) Before MARTIN , NEWSOM , and GRANT , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 18-13792 Date Filed: 05/01/2019 Page: 1 of 22 Megan Saillant, appointed counsel for Keith Jelks in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, coun sel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED , and Jelks’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED

.

Case: 18-13792 Date Filed: 05/01/2019 Page: 2 of 2
EXHIBIT
      32.1




CERTIFICATION
      OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER




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-KSB of Surfect Holdings, Inc.
      (the
“Company”) for the annual period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven
      Anderson, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S. C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:




(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) of
                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:
      March 28, 2008




/s/
        Steven
        Anderson


Steven
      Anderson


President
      and Chief Executive Officer
** **

**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CertificationPursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) of the Exchange Act**

** **

I, Richard Tan, certifythat:

 

1.             I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Stone Tan ChinaAcquisition Corp.;

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;

 

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.             I am responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

 

(a)           Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant is made known to me by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

(b)           Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)           Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

5.             I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent function):

 

(a)           Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b)           Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Date:       May 13, 2008

 

 
|   | /s/  Richard Tan |
|--------|------------------|
|   | Name:            | Richard  Tan |
|   | Title:           | Chief  Executive Officer, President and Director |
|   |             | (Principal  Executive and Principal Financial Officer) |

 

 

----
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 15

- 00729

- CV

CITY OF RIO GRANDE CITY, TEXAS , and Joel Villarreal, Herman R. Garza III, Arcadio J.

Salinas III, Rey Ramirez, and Dave Jones in their Official and Individual Capacities; Grande Garbage Collection Co., L.L.C.; and Patricio Hernandez, Appellants

v.

BFI WASTE SERVICES OF TEXAS , LP d/b/a Allied Waste Services of Rio Grande Valley, Appellee

From the 229th Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC

- 15

- 604

Honora ble Migdalia Lopez, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE PULLIAM

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order denying Grande Garbage Collection Co., L.L.C. and Patricio Hernandez’s plea t o the jurisdiction is AFFIRMED. The trial court’s order denying the City of Rio Grande City, Texas, Joel Villarreal, Herman R. Garza III, Arcadio J. Salinas III, Rey Ramirez, and Dave Jones in their Official Capacities’ plea to the jurisdiction is AFFIRME D as to BFI Waste Services of Texas , LP d/b/a Allied Waste Services of Rio Grande Valley’s claims for breach of contract, restraint of trade, civil conspiracy, misuse of official information, abuse of office, tortious interference, violations of the contra cts clause and due course of law clause of the Texas Constitution, and violations of the contracts clause and

Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The trial court’s order denying the City of Rio Grande City, Texas, Joel Villarreal, Herm an R. Garza III, Arcadio J. Salinas III, Rey Ramirez, and Dave Jones in their Official Capacities’ plea to the jurisdiction is REVERSED as to

BFI Waste Services of Texas , LP d/b/a Allied Waste Services of Rio Grande Valley’s claims for abuse of process and declaratory judgment, and these claims are DISMISSED. The trial court’s order granting BFI Waste Services of Texas , LP d/b/a Allied Waste Services of Rio Grande Valley’s request for a temporary injunction is AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that BFI Waste

Servic es of Texas , LP d/b/a Allied Waste Services of Rio Grande Valley recover its costs of this appeal from appellants.04

- 15

- 00729

- CV

- 2

- SIGNED September 21, 2016.

_____________________________ Jason Pulliam, Justice
February 20 , 2014



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

D.R. HORTON

- TEXAS, LTD

. , Appellant

NO. 14

- 12

- 01150

- CV V.

WILLIAM BERNHARD AND NADIA BERNHARD , Appellee s

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee s , William Bernhard and Nadia Bernhard, signed November 12, 2012, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the reco rd and find error in the judgment awarding appellate attorney’s fees

. We therefore REFORM the judgment of the court below by striking the following two paragraphs:

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in the event of appeal of this judgment to the court of appeal s, Defendant D.R. Horton

Texas, Ltd. shall pay Plaintiffs $18,500.00 in attorney’s fees defending this judgment.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in the event of appeal from any adverse ruling by the court of appeals, Defendant D.R.
Horton

- Texas, Ltd. shall pay Plaintiffs $25,000.00 in attorney’s fees defending this judgment.”

We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED except as modified in this judgment.

We order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal.

We further order this decis ion certified below for observance.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998             JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         $54,229                 $55,806
<SECURITIES>                                        $0                      $0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 $673,124              $1,067,777
<ALLOWANCES>                                        $0                      $0
<INVENTORY>                                $12,172,012             $10,490,160
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           $13,560,399             $12,263,620
<PP&E>                                     $18,633,931             $18,095,276
<DEPRECIATION>                             $13,154,653             $12,485,077
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             $19,605,117             $18,568,414
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       $9,559,313              $9,222,133
<BONDS>                                     $2,300,561              $3,072,521
<COMMON>                                      $174,926                $174,926
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               $0                      $0
<PREFERRED>                                         $0                      $0
<OTHER-SE>                                  $8,415,762              $6,549,104
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               $19,605,117             $18,568,414
<SALES>                                     $2,314,891              $2,884,487
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            $3,614,921              $2,919,149
<CGS>                                       $1,906,870              $2,267,408
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               $1,906,870              $2,267,408
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              $365,549                $359,772
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    $0                      $0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            $167,469                $200,650
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             $(772,566)            $(1,168,942)
<INCOME-TAX>                                $(316,092)                      $0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         $(456,474)            $(1,168,942)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      $0                      $0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     $0                      $0
<CHANGES>                                           $0                      $0
<NET-INCOME>                                $(456,474)            $(1,168,942)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   $(.88)                 $(2.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   $(.88)                 $(2.25)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 1 - 0 248 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. REGINA LEE THOMPSON,

Defendant and Appellant,
ORDER Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including May 1, 202 2 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal
.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 22 2022

03/22/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0248
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2009-1376 

TODD FOX and JANET FOX, 

Appellants, 

v. 

John E. Potter, POSTMASTER GENERAL, 

Appellee. 

David P. Hendel, Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for 

appellants. Of counsel on the brief was Sarah M. Graves, Akerman Senterfitt LLP, of 

Vienna, Virginia. 

David A. Harrington, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for appellee. 

With him on the brief were Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, 

Director, and Martin F. Hockey, Jr., Assistant Director. 

Appealed from: United States Postal Service Board of Contract Appeals 

Administrative Judge David I. Brochstein
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2009-1376 

TODD FOX and JANET FOX, 

Appellants, 

v. 

John E. Potter, POSTMASTER GENERAL, 

Appellee. 

Judgment 

ON APPEAL from the United States Postal Service Board of Contract Appeals 

In CASE NO(S). 6159 and 6169. 

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

Per Curiam (RADER, BRYSON, and LINN, Circuit Judges). 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

DATED February 17, 2010 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

Jan Horbaly, Clerk
Exhibit 35
                                  ----------


                      COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWALT, INC.
                        ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2006-OA3
              MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-OA3


      The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer
of Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing
LP (the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further certify pursuant to
Section 3.16 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned
Series (the "Agreement") that:

(i)   A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the
Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

(ii)  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
respects throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                      Dated: March 14, 2007
-----------------

Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance