alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Specimen Class A Common Stock Certificate



 Exhibit 4.2 

	
	 






 COMMON INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR CERTAIN
DEFINITIONS CUSIP 685691 40 4 THIS CERTIFIES THAT is the owner of FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE CLASS A COMMON STOCK, $0.01 PAR VALUE, OF ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE STORES CORPORATION transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in
person or by Attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed. This certificate is not valid until countersigned and registered by the Transfer Agent and Registrar. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Corporation has caused this certificate to
be signed by facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers. Dated: MARK R. BAKER, PRESIDENT MICHAEL W. FOX, SECRETARY COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE AMERICAN FINANCIAL
PRINTING INCORPORATED – MINNEAPOLIS 







 



 
 THE CORPORATION WILL 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 OR SERIES THEREOF AND THE QUALIFICATIONS, LIMITATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS OF SUCH PREFERENCES AND/OR RIGHTS. SUCH
REQUEST SHALL BE MADE TO THE CORPORATION’S SECRETARY AT THE PRINCIPAL OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION OR TO THE TRANSFER AGENT. KEEP THIS CERTIFICATE IN A SAFE PLACE. IF IT IS LOST, STOLEN, OR DESTROYED THE CORPORATION MAY REQUIRE A BOND OF INDEMNITY
AS A CONDITION TO THE ISSUANCE OF A REPLACEMENT CERTIFICATE. 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 UTMA – Custodian (Cust) (Minor) TEN ENT – as tenants by entireties under Uniform Transfers to Minors JT TEN – as joint tenants with right of survivorship Act and not as tenants in
common (State) Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in above list. For value received hereby sell, assign, and transfer unto (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE) Shares of the capital stock
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 X X 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 WHATEVER. SIGNATURE GUARANTEED ALL GUARANTEES MUST BE MADE BY A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
(SUCH AS A BANK OR BROKER) WHICH IS A PARTICIPANT IN THE SECURITIES TRANSFER AGENTS MEDALLION PROGRAM (“STAMP”), THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE, INC. MEDALLION SIGNATURE PROGRAM (“MSP”), OR THE STOCK EXCHANGES MEDALLION PROGRAM
(“SEMP”) AND MUST NOT BE DATED. GUARANTEES BY A NOTARY PUBLIC ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                           3,645
<SECURITIES>                                     3,938
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,884
<ALLOWANCES>                                       650
<INVENTORY>                                      2,388
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,136
<PP&E>                                          12,885
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,562
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30,769
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,424
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            38
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,307
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,345
<SALES>                                          5,240
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,730
<CGS>                                            4,739
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,725
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,488
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,139
<INCOME-TAX>                                       433
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                706
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       706
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 16, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-50297 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RENE GUILLERMO CASTANON, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-03-CR-659-1-DB

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Rene Guillermo Castanon appeals from his conviction of possessing with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Castanon, for the first time on appeal, contends that the adjustments to his offense level violated Blakely v. Washington , 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), and constituted plain error. Castanon correctly concedes that his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Pineiro , 377 F.3d 464 (2004), petition for cert. filed (U.S. July 14, 2004) (No. 04-5263), but he raises the issue to preserve it for further review.No. 04-50297 -2- Castanon contends that the district court erred by not awarding him a two-level “safety-valve” adjustment; by adjusting his offense level for an aggravating role; and by failing to adjust his offense level for a mitigating role. Castanon argues that his waiver of the right to appeal his sentence was unknowing and involuntary because he suffered from unspecified psychiatric problems. The record indicates that Castanon’s waiver was knowing and voluntary. See United States v. Robinson , 187 F.3d 516, 518 & n.2 (5th Cir. 1999). The record does not support Castanon’s assertion that he was impaired by a psychiatric condition. Because Castanon waived the right to appeal his sentence, we do not address his contentions regarding application of the sentencing guidelines.
AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                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 on Form 10-Q of Health Fitness
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2003 (the "Periodic
Report"), I, Jerry V. Noyce, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

    1.  The Periodic 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 or
        78o(d)); and

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


November 14, 2003

                                                 /s/ Jerry V. Noyce
                                                 -------------------------
                                                 Jerry V. Noyce
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                                 Health Fitness Corporation



                                       18
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-QSB
FOR THE FISCAL QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1998. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-30-1998
<CASH>                                           12,111
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   648,155<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                     373,452
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              1,665,437
<PP&E>                                        2,453,588
<DEPRECIATION>                                  933,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                3,372,739
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         1,302,455
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                      50,000
<COMMON>                                     20,499,352
<OTHER-SE>                                     (259,895)<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  3,372,739
<SALES>                                         425,522
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                425,522
<CGS>                                           377,052
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   377,052
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              1,579,514
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                4,749
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (1,130,022)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (1,130,022)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (1,130,022)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES STOCK SUBSCRIPTION RECEIVABLE $385,300
<F2>NOTE RECEIVABLE FOR PREFERRED STOCK OF $259,895 IS SHOWN AS CONTRA-EQUITY
ACCOUNT.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
 Addendum to the Deferred Prosecution Agreement 
 1. Exactech, Inc.
(“Exactech”), by its undersigned attorneys, pursuant to authority granted by its Board of Directors, and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey (the “Office”), enter into this Addendum to the
Deferred Prosecution Agreement (the “Addendum”). 
 2. Exactech and the Office agree to extend the term of the Deferred Prosecution
Agreement currently in effect between Exactech and the Office (the “DPA”) by a period of three (3) months, from December 8, 2011, to March 8, 2012. Except for these terms expressly addressed herein, all other terms and
conditions of the DPA will continue to be in full force and effect until March 8, 2012. 
 3. Paragraphs 1 and 4 of the DPA are hereby
amended to substitute “fifteen (15) months” for “twelve (12) months.” 
 4. Exactech and the Office agree to
modify the date upon which the next report from the Monitor is due from on or before December 7, 2011, to on or before February 8, 2012. 
 5. The Office agrees to move on December 6, 2011, for an Order, in the form attached as Exhibit A, further continuing the proceedings in United States v. Exactech, Inc., Criminal No. 10-837
(GEB), through and including March 8, 2012. 
 AGREED TO: 
  


					
	 /s/ William Petty
	 		 	 /s/ J. Gilmore Childers

	William Petty, M.D.	 		 	J. Gilmore Childers
	 Chairman of the Board of Directors
 and Chief Executive Officer
 Exactech, Inc.
	 		 	 Attorney for the United States, Acting Under
 Authority Conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 515

			
	 December 5, 2011
	 		 	 December 6, 2011

	Date	 		 	Date
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6295

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALVIN JUSTIN HUGGINS, a/k/a Buddy, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-95-51-H, CA-01-70-4-H) Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 18, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith Alan Williams, KEITH A. WILLIAMS, P.A., Greenville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Alvin Justin Huggins seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Huggins , Nos. CR95-51-H; CA-01-70-4-H (E.D.N.C. Nov. 26, 2001). 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
<PAGE>

                                 AMENDMENT 2 
                                TOP MANAGEMENT 
                       CHANGE-IN-CONTROL SEVERANCE PLAN

The Company adopted a Top Management Change-In-Control Severance Plan effective
January 1, 1994 (the "Plan").

The Top Management Change-In-Control Severance Plan was amended October 29,
1996.

Section 1.2 of the Plan was amended and restated to read in its entirety as
follows:

Term of the Plan. This Plan will commence on the Effective Date and shall
continue in effect for six (6) full years. However, at the end of such six (6)
year period, and at the end of each additional year thereafter, the term of this
Plan shall be extended automatically for one (1) additional year unless the
Committee delivers written notice six (6) months prior to the end of such term,
or extended term, to all Participants that the Plan will not be extended. In
such case, the Plan will terminate at the end of the term, or, extended term,
then in progress.
EXHIBIT 31.1      SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, William J. Fossen, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Viking Capital Group,
Inc.;

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

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included in this quarterly  report,  fairly present in all material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
         a) Designed such  disclosure  controls and  procedures,  or caused such
disclosure  controls and  procedures to be designed  under our  supervision,  to
ensure that  material  information  relating to the  registrant,  including  its
consolidated subsidiaries,  is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
         b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure controls
and  procedures  and  presented  in  this  report  our  conclusions   about  the
effectiveness  of the disclosure  controls and procedures,  as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
         c)  Disclosed  in this report any change in the  registrant's  internal
control over financial  reporting  that occurred  during the  registrant's  most
recent fiscal  quarter (the  registrant's  fourth  fiscal  quarter in case of an
annual  report)  that  has  materially  affected,  or is  reasonably  likely  to
materially affect, the registrant's  internal control over financial  reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent  evaluation of internal  control over  financial  reporting,  to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
         a) All significant  deficiencies and material  weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal controls over financial  reporting which are reasonably
likely  to  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability  to  record,  process,
summarize and report financial information; and
         b) Any fraud,  whether or not  material,  that  involves  management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.


Date: August 12, 2004


/s/  William J. Fossen.
------------------------------
William J. Fossen
Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 823 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 823

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 206 West Commercial Street in East Rochester, New York, as the 
               ``Officer Daryl R. Pierson Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 19, 2015

Mr. Schumer (for himself and Mrs. Gillibrand) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 206 West Commercial Street in East Rochester, New York, as the 
               ``Officer Daryl R. Pierson Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. OFFICER DARYL R. PIERSON POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 206 West Commercial Street in East Rochester, New York, 
shall be known and designated as the ``Officer Daryl R. Pierson Post 
Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Officer 
Daryl R. Pierson Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
1 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, Un ited States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable J. Thomas Ray, United States Magi strate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-1554

___________ James Kenneth Tegeler, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, * Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: August 6, 2010 Filed: August 17, 2010

___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. James Kenneth Tegeler appeals the district court’s 1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits. Tegele r alleged disability since October 2005 from a seizure disorder. Following a heari ng, an administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that (1) Tegeler’s seizure diso rder was a severe impairment, but did not2 We decline to address those arguments that are irrelevant, entirely new, or undeveloped. -2- meet or medically equal the requirements of any relevant listing; (2) his anxiety was not a severe impairment; (3) his testimony wa s not entirely credible; (4) as to his residual functional capacity (RFC), he had no physical limitations and his only nonexertional limitations were typical seizure precautions; and (5) while a vocational expert (VE) testified that Tegeler’s RFC precluded his past relevant work, in response to the ALJ’s hypothetical the VE identified other jobs Tegeler could perform. The Appeals Council denied review, and the di strict court affirmed. Having carefully reviewed the record and consideredTegeler’s arguments for reversal, 2see Dipple v. Astrue , 601 F.3d 833, 836 (8th Cir. 2010) (sta ndard of review), we affirm. Specifically, we find that the ALJ’s credibility determination is entitled to deference as it was based on several valid reasons, see Halverson v. Astrue , 600 F.3d 922, 932 (8th Cir. 2010); and that the ALJ properly relied on the VE’s response to a hypothetical, see Stormo v. Barnhart , 377 F.3d 801, 808-09 (8th Cir. 2004). We also find that the evidence Tegeler offered for the first time on appeal did not meet the requirements for remand. SeeHepp v. Astrue , 511 F.3d 798, 808 (8th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________