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



 Exhibit 4.1 
 




 
  
 NUMBER 
 SHARES 

SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS 
 CUSIP 31572Q 80 8 
 FIBROGEN 

INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

THIS CERTIFIES THAT 
 is the owner of 
 SHARES OF COMMON STOCK

 FibroGen, Inc. 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: 
 SECRETARY 
 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED: 
 AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY 

(New York, New York) 
 TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR 
 BY 

AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE 
 AMERICAN FINANCIAL PRINTING INCORPORATED – MINNEAPOLIS 







 



 
  
 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: 

UTMA – Custodian 
 TEN COM – as tenants in common 
 (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 the above list. 
 For value received     hereby sell, assign, and transfer unto 
 PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE 
 (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING POSTAL 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      

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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Polymer Group, Inc.'s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2000 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              JAN-01-2000
<CASH>                                         37,180
<SECURITIES>                                   19,115
<RECEIVABLES>                                 143,836
<ALLOWANCES>                                   10,587
<INVENTORY>                                   113,229
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              348,985
<PP&E>                                      1,004,143
<DEPRECIATION>                                180,794
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              1,466,246
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         160,080
<BONDS>                                       600,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          320
<OTHER-SE>                                    241,964
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                1,466,246
<SALES>                                       889,795
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              889,795
<CGS>                                         650,185
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 650,185
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             71,882
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                52,024
<INCOME-TAX>                                   18,584
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            33,440
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   33,440
<EPS-BASIC>                                      1.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    1.04


</TABLE>
#### JIN FENG GUO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-72261.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 14, 2011.

Daniel Fong, Fong Law Group, Inc., Monterey Park, CA, for Petitioner.

Andrea Gevas, OIL, Papú Sandhu, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jin Feng Guo, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.' We review for substantial evidence factual findings. *Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding because the discrepancy between Guo’s declaration and his testimony regarding whether he presented a written petition to a government official during the August 15, 2003, protest march goes to the heart of his claim. *See Kohli v. Gonzales,*473 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir.2007); *Li v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir.2004) (“[s]o long as one of the identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of [the] claim of persecution, we are bound to accept the IJ’s adverse credibility finding.”) (internal quotation omitted). In the absence of credible testimony, Guo’s asy*698lum and withholding of removal claims fail. *See Farah,*348 F.3d at 1156:

Because Guo’s CAT claim is based on the testimony the agency found not credible, and he points to no other evidence showing it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to China, his CAT claim also fails. *Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

________________________

No. ACM 39471

________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Brandon J. CARRIER

Airman First Class (E-3), U.S. Air Force, Appellant

________________________

Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary

Decided 11 December 2018

________________________

Military Judge: Christina M. Jimenez.

Approved sentence: Dishonorable discharge, confinement for 2 years, 

forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to E-1. Sentence adjudged 14 March 2018 by GCM convened at Laughlin Air Force Base, 

Texas. 

For Appellant: Major Mark C. Bruegger, USAF.

For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Joseph J. Kubler, USAF; Mary Ellen 

Payne, Esquire.

Before JOHNSON, DENNIS, and LEWIS, Appellate Military Judges.

________________________

This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as 

precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.

________________________

PER CURIAM:

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 

59(a) and 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c). 
United States v. Carrier, No. ACM 39471

2

Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE

Clerk of the Court
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2916 

To provide that no recreation grants made using funds from the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund may be used to acquire land or make 

improvements in State or local parks. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 17, 2009 

Mr. CHAFFETZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To provide that no recreation grants made using funds from 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund may be used 

to acquire land or make improvements in State or local 

parks. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON FUNDING OF NATIONAL HERIT4 AGE AREAS. 

5 Notwithstanding any other law, no recreation grants 

6 made using funds from the Land and Water Conservation 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2916 IH

1 Fund may be used to acquire land or make improvements 

2 in State or local parks. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
**Exhibit 32.4**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of SRS Labs, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter endingJune 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Janet M. Biski, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, asadopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.     The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| Date: February 19,  2004 | By:    | /s/ Janet M. Biski       |
|--------------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|                     |   | Janet M. Biski           |
|                     |   | Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----
#### Bartholomy Jeannot et al., Respondents, v Willie Lawrence et al., Appellants.

[667 NYS2d 66]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), entered March 5, 1997, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that neither of the plaintiffs had sustained a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The notice of appeal from a decision dated December 31, 1996, is deemed to be a premature notice of appeal from the order entered March 5, 1997 (CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The instant action was commenced to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by the plaintiff Bartholomy Jeannot and the infant plaintiff Brenda Jean in a two-vehicle accident which occurred on November 27, 1992. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that neither of the plaintiffs suffered a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d). The Supreme Court denied the motion. We reverse.

The defendants established a prima facie case that neither injured plaintiff suffered a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see, Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955). The Supreme Court incorrectly determined that the plaintiffs submitted sufficient evidence in opposition to the motion to raise a triable question of fact on that issue.

The affidavit of the treating chiropractor for the infant plaintiff Brenda Jean was insufficient to demonstrate that she sustained a “permanent consequential limitation of use of a body function or system” (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]), as he failed to quantify tbe restriction of motion which she allegedly suffered *(see, Fasulo v Lukach,*239 AD2d 462; *Panisse v Jrs. Truck Rental,*239 AD2d 397; *Lupo v Kam On Cheung,*236 AD2d 594).

*548The plaintiff Bartholomy Jeannot failed to demonstrate that he suffered a serious injury. It is undisputed that within 90 days after the accident in question (hereinafter the first accident), Jeannot was involved in another motor vehicle accident (hereinafter the second accident), in which he also allegedly suffered serious injury. Dr. Jonathan Tepper, the chiropractor who treated Jeannot for injuries allegedly sustained in the second accident, did not treat him for injuries allegedly sustained in the first accident. Therefore, Dr. Tepper’s affidavit was insufficient to establish that the injuries which Jeannot allegedly sustained in the first accident were causally related to his alleged inability to perform “substantially all of the material acts which constitute [d] [his] usual and customary daily activities for not less than ninety days during the one hundred eighty days immediately following the occurrence of the injury or impairment” (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; *see, Khodadadian v Wolff,*242 AD2d 681; *Cacaccio v Martin,*235 AD2d 384; *Waaland v Weiss,*228 AD2d 435; *Beckett v Conte,*176 AD2d 774). Miller, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-2000
<CASH>                                       2,426,057
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,855,651
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 20,070,055
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            32,077,970
<PP&E>                                       6,861,830
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              64,310,194
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       22,376,932
<BONDS>                                     12,973,741
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         22
<COMMON>                                         8,663
<OTHER-SE>                                  28,950,836
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                64,310,194
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,874,061
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,654,037
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,714,620
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,030,846
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                487,896
<INCOME-TAX>                                    32,355
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   455,541
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                             DURA AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, INC.
                     STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                    FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND 1996
                         (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                               1997               1996
                                            --------            --------
<S>                                         <C>                 <C>
Net income                                  $  3,544            $  1,347 
                                            --------            --------
                                            --------            --------

Weighted average number of
  Class A common stock                         3,814                   - 

Weighted average number of
  Class B common stock                         4,987               5,002 

Dilutive effect of outstanding
  stock options after application
  of the treasury stock method                    55                  27 
                                            --------            -------- 

Common and common equivalent
  shares outstanding                           8,856               5,029 
                                            --------            --------
                                            --------            --------

Net income per common and
  common equivalent share(1)                 $  0.40             $  0.27 
                                            --------            --------
                                            --------            --------
</TABLE>

(1) The calculation of net income per common and common equivalent share for 
the three month periods ended March 31, 1997 and 1996 are the same on a 
primary and fully diluted basis.

                                       -14-
**Exhibit 23.1.1**

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (FormS-8 No. 333-95249) pertaining to the TESSCO Technologies Incorporated TeamMember Stock Purchase Plan and the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No.33-87178 and Form S-8 No. 333-118177), pertaining to the TESSCO TechnologiesIncorporated Amended and Restated 1994 Stock and Incentive Plan and EmployeeIncentive Stock Option Plan, of our report dated June 4, 2007, with respect tothe consolidated financial statements and schedule of TESSCO TechnologiesIncorporated included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended April1, 2007.

/s/ Ernst & Young, LLP

Baltimore, MarylandJune 11, 2007

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frank Rota, Appellant.

[665 NYS2d 661]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J.), rendered July 11, 1994, convicting defendant, after nonjury trial, of sodomy in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an indeterminate term of IV2 to 3 years imprisonment, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the predicate felony determination and sentence and substituting therefor an indeterminate term of 1 to 3 years imprisonment, and otherwise affirmed. Appeal from the order of the same court and Justice, entered March 28, 1997, denying defendant’s motion to set aside the sentence, unanimously dismissed as academic.

The predicate felony offered at defendant’s sentencing was an out-of-State conviction for what was described as credit card fraud, rendered on plea of guilty to a criminal charge in Pennsylvania, in violation of 18 Pa Cons Stat Annot § 4101. The prosecutor likened that statute to New York’s class D felony of forgery in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.10). The court agreed that the two statutes were “practically identical”, and sentenced defendant as a second felony offender.

Defendant argued, and we agree, that the Pennsylvania and New York felonies are qualitatively different. Penal Law § 170.10 penalizes the false making, completion or alteration of a written instrument “with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another”. The Pennsylvania statute, on the other hand, allows for conviction even where there is simply “knowledge [on the part of the defendant] that he is facilitating a fraud or injury to be perpetrated by anyone” (18 Pa Cons Stat Annot § 4101 [a]), which cannot be equated, in the abstract, with *intent*that the other person succeed in perpetrating the fraud, deception or injury. In this respect, the Pennsylvania statute is substantively more akin to New York’s class A misdemeanor of criminal facilitation in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 115.00). Furthermore, the Pennsylvania statute proscribes the unauthorized use of “any writing [which includes a credit card] so that it purports to be the act of another” (18 Pa Cons Stat An-not §4101 [a] [2]; [b]). New York’s analogous proscription is the class A misdemeanor of criminal impersonation in the second degree (Penal Law § 190.25).

*134It is not enough to say that the Pennsylvania and New York felony statutes are “practically identical.” Where New York law renders felonious certain conduct committed with criminal intent, and the purportedly equivalent foreign statute can also apply to less culpable levels of intent as would fall below the felony threshold here, the statutes are not sufficiently analogous as to render the foreign conviction a predicate felony under Penal Law § 70.06 *(People v Fermin,*231 AD2d 436; *People v Muniz,*74 NY2d 464).

There being no need to remand for resentencing *(People v Lawrence,*130 AD2d 383), we modify the sentence accordingly. Concur—Wallach, J. P., Nardelli, Tom, Mazzarelli and Colabella, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2864 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2864

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 15, 2010

    Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 1998 to authorize 
 funds to acquire hydrographic data and provide hydrographic services 
  specific to the Arctic for safe navigation, delineating the United 
 States extended continental shelf, and the monitoring and description 
                          of coastal changes.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    Section 306 of the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 1998 
(33 U.S.C. 892d) is amended--
            (1) by inserting before the text the following: ``(a) In 
        General.--''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(b) Arctic Programs.--Of the amount authorized for each of fiscal 
years 2011 and 2012--
            ``(1) $5,000,000 is authorized for use to acquire 
        hydrographic data, provide hydrographic services, conduct 
        coastal change analyses necessary to ensure safe navigation, 
        and improve the management of coastal change in the Arctic; and
            ``(2) $2,000,000 is authorized for use to acquire 
        hydrographic data and provide hydrographic services in the 
        Arctic necessary to delineate the United States extended 
        Continental Shelf.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 14, 2010.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.

                               By Deborah M. Spriggs,

                                                          Deputy Clerk.
```