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



 Exhibit 4.1 

 
 




 
 Incorporated under the laws of the state of delaware shares
CUSIP 57165B 10 6 SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS This certifies that is the record holder of Fully paid and nonassessable shares of common stock, $0.00001 par value, of MARRONE BIO INNOVATIONS, INC. transferable on the books of the corporation
in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed. this CERTIFICATE certificate is not valid until countersigned by the transfer agent of and registered STOCK by the registrar. wItness the facsimile seal
of the corporation and the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers. dated: presIdent & chief executive officer O INNOV B I A O TI N E RP RA O C O TE N R O S , R SEAL I N A M . C DEELAWAR secretary & chief financial officer
countersigned and registered: american stock transfer & trust company, llc (new york, ny) transfer agent and registrar BY: authorized signature 







 



 
 The Corporation shall furnish without charge to each stockholder who so requests a
statement of the powers, designations, preferences and relative, participating, optional or other special rights of each class of stock of the Corporation or series thereof and the qualifications, limitations or restrictions of such preferences
and/or rights. Such requests shall be made to the Corporation’s Secretary at the principal office of the Corporation. The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they
were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: TEN COM – as tenants in common UNIF GIFT MIN ACT – Custodian TEN ENT – as tenants by the entireties (Cust) (Minor) JT TEN – as joint tenants with right of
under Uniform Gifts to Minors survivorship and not as tenants Act (State) in common COM PROP – as community property UNIF TRF MIN ACT – Custodian (until age) (Cust) (Minor) under Uniform Transfers to Minors Act (State) Additional
abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. FOR VALUE RECEIVED, hereby sell(s), assign(s) and transfer(s) unto PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS,
INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE) shares of the capital stock represented by within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint attorney-in-fact to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Corporation with full power
of the substitution in the premises. Dated X X Signature(s) Guaranteed: NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY
CHANGE WHATSOEVER. By THE SIGNATURE(S) SHOULD BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION, (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM), PURSUANT
TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15. GUARANTEES BY A NOTARY PUBLIC ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. SIGNATURE GUARANTEES MUST NOT BE DATED.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

_________________________

No. 06-11-00248-CR

______________________________

MICHAEL MANDEL CHRISTIAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 6th Judicial District Court

Lamar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 23277

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Michael Mandel Christian argues—on appeal from a judgment adjudicating his guilt for 

aggravated assault and sentencing him to fifteen years’ imprisonment—that his trial counsel was 

ineffective because he recommended that Christian plead guilty in the underlying action from 

which he was placed on deferred adjudication. Because ineffective assistance of counsel during 

the original proceeding cannot now be raised on appeal from Christian’s adjudication of guilt, we 

affirm the trial court’s judgment.

A defendant placed on deferred adjudication community supervision may raise issues 

relating to the original plea proceeding only in appeals taken when deferred adjudication is first 

imposed. Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).1 Christian’s argument is 

therefore not cognizable in this appeal from the final adjudication of guilt.

Even if it were reviewable, Christian runs headlong into the rigorous requirements of 

establishing ineffective assistance of counsel. He would be required to prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence (1) that his counsel’s representation fell below an objective 

standard of reasonableness and (2) that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense. 

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689 (1984); Rosales v. State, 4 S.W.3d 228, 231 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1999). To meet this burden, Christian would be required to prove that the attorney’s 

representation fell below the standard of prevailing professional norms and that there is a 

reasonable probability that, but for the attorney’s deficiency, the result of the trial would have 

 

1An exception exists in the case of a void judgment, but there is no suggestion that this exception could apply to this 

case. See Nix v. State, 65 S.W.3d 664, 667 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).
3

been different. Ex parte Martinez, 195 S.W.3d 713, 730 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Tong v. State,

25 S.W.3d 707, 712 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).

Where an appellate record is silent as to why trial counsel failed to take certain actions, 

the appellant has failed to rebut the presumption that trial counsel’s decision was in some way

reasonable. See Mata v. State, 226 S.W.3d 425, 431 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). In this case, there 

is no record at any level to indicate why counsel chose to take or declined to take any of these 

actions.

We affirm the judgment.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: September 4, 2012

Date Decided: September 7, 2012

Do Not Publish
FIFTH AMENDMENT
                                 TO THE
                       EASTERN UTILITIES ASSOCIATES
                         EMPLOYEES' SAVINGS PLAN



WHEREAS, Eastern Utilities Associates (the "Employer") previously established
the Eastern Utilities Associates Employees' Savings Plan (the "Plan") effective
January 1, 1982; and

        WHEREAS, the Employer Amended and Restated the Plan effective January
1, 1989; and

        WHEREAS, the Employer reserved the right to amend the Plan from time to
time under Section 13.2 of the Plan.

        NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with and pursuant to the foregoing,
effective April 1, 1998, the Plan is amended as follows:

1.      By deleting the second sentence of Section 3.1 of the Plan in its
        entirety and by substituting therefor the following:

        "This reduction in Earnings shall be in any whole percentage from 1% to
        20% of such Earnings or, if permitted by the Committee, in a flat
        dollar amount not less than 1% and not to exceed 20% of such Earnings,
        provided however, that if an Eligible Employee is a member of a
        collective bargaining unit, the figure "20%" in this Section 3.1 shall
        be replaced by "15%," unless the collective bargaining agreement under
        which such Employee is covered provides otherwise."

2.      By deleting the second sentence of Section 3.2 of the Plan in its
        entirety and by substituting therefor the following:

        "The contribution rate shall be in any whole percentage from 1% to 20%
        of such Earnings or, if permitted by the Committee, in a flat dollar
        amount not less than 1% and not to exceed 20% of such Earnings,
        provided that such After-Tax Participant Contribution(s) shall not
        exceed the difference between 20% and the contribution percentage such
        Eligible Employee has currently authorized for Pre-Tax Participant
        Contribution(s).  Notwithstanding the foregoing, if an Eligible
        Employee is a member of a collective bargaining unit, the figure "20%"
        in this Section 3.2 shall be replaced by "15%," unless the collective
        bargaining agreement under which such Employee is covered provides
        otherwise."


3.      By deleting Section 4.5(a)(ii) in its entirety and by substituting
        therefor the following:

        "25% of the Employee's compensation (as defined by Code Section
        415(c)(3), including amounts deferred pursuant to Code Section 401(k)
        and amounts which are contributed or deferred and which are not
        included in the Employee's income by reason of Code Section 125 or
        457) from the Participating Employer."


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, EASTERN UTILITIES ASSOCIATES has caused this instrument to
be executed and delivered on its behalf by the undersigned on this
23rd day of April, 1998.


ATTEST:                                 EASTERN UTILITIES ASSOCIATES


/s/Clifford J. Hebert, Jr.             By:/s/Donald G. Pardus
   Clifford J. Hebert, Jr.                   Donald G. Pardus
Secretary

                                       Its:    Chairman
(Corporate Seal)
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-95,630-01

EX P ARTE STANLEY LEE JOHNSON, Applicant

ON AP P LICATION F OR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1087344-A IN THE 230 T H DISTRICT COURT F ROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam . K

E L L E R , P .J. f

iled a dissenting opinion joined by S L A U G H T E R , J. Y E A R Y , J. f iled a dissenting opinion. O P I N I O N Applicant p leaded g uilty , was convicted o f p ossession o f a controlled substance, and sentenced to two y ears’ imprisonment in this c ause. Applicant filed this a p p l i c a t i o n for a writ of habeas c orpus in the county of conviction, and the district c lerk forwarded it to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R

I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. Applicant contends t h at his plea was involuntary and violates due process because he was not aware of a lab report showing that he possessed less than the required f o ur g rams of controlled substance to sustain the charg e. B ased on the record, the a mount of drug s possess was less than four g rams. Relief is g ranted. Ex parte Mable , 443 S.W .3d 129 (Tex

. Crim. Ap p. 2014), Brady v. United2

States , 397 U.S. 742 (1970). T he judg ment in cause number 1087344 in the 230 t h District Court of Harris County is set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of H arris County to answer the charg e as set out in the indictment. The trial co u rt shall issue a ny necessary bench warrant within ten day s from the date of this Court’s mandate. Copies of this opinion shall be sent to t h e T e xa s D e p a

r t m e n t o f C riminal J u stice–Correctional I nstitutions Division and the B oard of Pardons and Paroles.

Delivered: J une 19, 2024 Do not publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<RESTATED>
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   2-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         9,118,000
<SECURITIES>                                   112,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,723,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (140,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               11,231,000
<PP&E>                                          8,011,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                (3,665,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 24,413,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5,151,000
<BONDS>                                        15,500,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          6,155,000
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       8,274,000
<OTHER-SE>                                    (14,328,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   24,413,000
<SALES>                                        181,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               181,000
<CGS>                                          1,457,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,698,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (115,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             312,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (3,714,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (3,714,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                (222,000)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (3,936,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.48)
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3486 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 558
111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3486

                          [Report No. 111-287]

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to repeal the prohibition on 
 collective bargaining with respect to matters and questions regarding 
 compensation of employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs other 
            than rates of basic pay, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 15, 2010

   Mr. Brown of Ohio (for himself, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. 
Specter, Mr. Begich, Mr. Franken, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Casey, 
and Mr. Burris) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

                           September 2, 2010

Reported under authority of the order of the Senate of August 5, 2010, 
                    by Mr. Akaka, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to repeal the prohibition on 
 collective bargaining with respect to matters and questions regarding 
 compensation of employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs other 
            than rates of basic pay, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF PROHIBITION ON COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WITH RESPECT 
              TO COMPENSATION OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 
              EMPLOYEES OTHER THAN RATES OF BASIC PAY.

    Subsections (b) and (d) of section 7422 of title 38, United States 
Code, are amended by striking ``compensation'' both places it appears 
and inserting ``rates of basic pay''.
                                                       Calendar No. 558

111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 3486

                          [Report No. 111-287]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to repeal the prohibition on 
 collective bargaining with respect to matters and questions regarding 
 compensation of employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs other 
            than rates of basic pay, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 2, 2010

                       Reported without amendment
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-1455

OLAKUNLE A. OJO,

Petitioner,

versus

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A72-416-950)

Submitted: December 22, 1999 Decided: February 8, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joshua A. Moses, JOSHUA MOSES & ASSOCIATES, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney

General, Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, Joseph F. Ciolino,

Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Olakunle Ajibola Ojo, a native and citizen of Nigeria, seeks

review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)

denying Ojo’s claims for suspension of deportation and voluntary

departure and ordering him deported. We find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that Ojo is statutorily precluded from demonstrating the good moral character necessary to

sustain applications for suspension of deportation or voluntary

departure. See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101(f) (West 1999). Therefore, we

deny Ojo’s petition for review.

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.

PETITION DENIED
# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Board of DirectorsBadger Paper Mills, Inc.
and Subsidiary

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statement of Badger Paper Mills, Inc. and Subsidiary on
Forms S-8 (File No. 333-01671, effective March 13, 1996 and File No. 333-01673, effective
March 13, 1996) of our reports dated February 4, 2005, relating to the consolidated
financial statements and financial statement schedule of Badger Paper Mills, Inc.
appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004.

/s/  Grant Thornton LLP
Grant Thornton LLP
Appleton, WisconsinMarch 29, 2005
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICER REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS



I, Steven A. Schumm, the Chief Administrative Officer of Enstar Income/Growth Program Six-A, L.P. (the "Partnership") in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that, the Partnership's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the six months ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission:

- fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
- the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

/s/  Steven A. SchummSteven A. SchummChief Administrative OfficerAugust 18, 2004
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: The Honorable Mark Henry, Judge of Galveston County v. 

The Honorable Lonnie Cox

Appellate case number: 01-15-00583-CV

Trial court case number: 15-CV-0583

Trial court: 56th District Court of Galveston County

Appellant, the Honorable Mark Henry, County Judge of Galveston County, timely 

filed a notice of interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s “Order Granting Temporary 

Injunction,” signed on July 6, 2015. Appellant has also filed an emergency motion for 

stay seeking “a stay of enforcement” of the temporary injunction order. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 29.3. Appellant contends that “[a] stay is needed to prevent contempt proceedings from 

being initiated based on that temporary injunction and to avoid further political discord 

between the administrative judges of Galveston County and the Galveston County 

Commissioners Court.”1 Appellee, the Honorable Lonnie Cox, has filed a response to 

appellant’s motion. We deny the motion. See In re Lasik Plus of Tex., P.A., No. 14-13-

00036-CV, 2013 WL 816674, at *3–4 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 5, 2013, 

orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (citing TEX. R. APP. P. 29.3; Lamar Builders, Inc. v. 

Guardian Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 786 S.W.2d 789, 791 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 

1990, no writ)) (concluding movant had not shown entitlement to temporary relief under 

rule 29.3); Lamar Builders, 786 S.W.2d at 791 (providing movant for temporary order 

“must make a clear showing that it is entitled to relief”).

 

1

“While an appeal from an interlocutory order is pending, only the appellate court in 

which the appeal is pending may enforce the order.” TEX. R. APP. P. 29.4; see In re 

Sheshtawy, 154 S.W.3d 114, 121 (Tex. 2004) (quoting TEX. R. APP. P. 29.4) (noting 

“[C]urrent rules of appellate procedure provide that during an interlocutory appeal, ‘only 

the appellate court in which the appeal is pending may enforce the order.’”).
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: July 8, 2015
Exhibit 32(d)

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
Kevin W. Hadlock, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to my knowledge:

(i)    The
accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii)   The
information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Baltimore Gas and Electric
Company.

|                                                                                        |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ KEVIN W. HADLOCK Kevin W. Hadlock
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |  | 

Date: February 27, 2009

---



QuickLinks
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Said Gssime, Appellant, v Daniel F. Martuscello Jr., as Superintendent of Coxsackie Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Submitted March 4, 2013;

decided April 25, 2013

*902Motion for reconsideration of this Court’s January 15, 2013 dismissal order denied *[see 20*NY3d 1005 (2013)].

Judge Rivera taking no part.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3609 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3609

   To extend the temporary authority for the performance of medical 
 disability examinations by contract physicians for the Department of 
                           Veterans Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 19, 2010

   Mr. Akaka introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend the temporary authority for the performance of medical 
 disability examinations by contract physicians for the Department of 
                           Veterans Affairs.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR PERFORMANCE OF MEDICAL DISABILITY 
              EXAMINATIONS BY CONTRACT PHYSICIANS.

    Section 704(c) of the Veterans Benefits Act of 2003 (Public Law 
108-183; 38 U.S.C. 5101 note) is amended by striking ``December 31, 
2010'' and inserting ``December 31, 2012''.
                                 <all>
```