alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# National Forest Products Week, 2017

During National Forest Products Week, we recognize the invaluable contribution forest products make to our daily lives, the forest products industry's importance to our economy, and the incredible beauty and recreational opportunities provided by our Nation's woodlands. This year, many of our forests and surrounding communities face blazing wildfires, so we also pray for the safety of our people, our first responders, and our forest habitats.

Our Nation is blessed with millions of acres of forested lands. These lands produce abundant renewable and sustainable natural resources that support our economy. They provide 2.4 million jobs, primarily in rural communities across America, and produce products that help improve our everyday lives. Whether we are writing a note, building a home, or sending a delivery, paper and wood products enable us to do our jobs and live comfortable lives.

America's thriving forest products market helps protect and preserve our abundant forests for future generations. Demand for forest products encourages landowners to replant and maintain healthy forests, knowing that through proper stewardship and responsible management, our precious forests will continue to contribute to our economic prosperity and quality of life.

During National Forest Products Week, we acknowledge and celebrate the many uses of our parks, forests, and woodlands, and we honor the dedicated Americans who work to ensure our forests remain productive and magnificent for future generations.

Recognizing the economic value of the products yielded in our Nation's forests, the Congress, by Public Law 86-753 (36 U.S.C. 123), as amended, has designated the week beginning on the third Sunday in October of each year as “National Forest Products Week” and has authorized and requested the President to issue a proclamation in observance of this week.

                    NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim October 15 through October 21, 2017, as National Forest Products Week. I call upon all Americans to observe this week with appropriate ceremonies and activities and to reaffirm our commitment to our Nation's forests.                          ( print page 48752)    

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirteenth day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand seventeen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-second. 

[FR Doc. 2017-22936

Billing code 3295-F8-P
Exhibit 21**CONSOLIDATEDWATER CO. LTD. AND RELATED COMPANIES****Affiliates of the Registrant**     The following list includes all of the Registrant’s wholly-owned subsidiaries and affiliatesas of December 31, 2007. All subsidiaries of the Registrant appearing in the following table areincluded in the consolidated financial statements of the Registrant.   **Affiliates** **Jurisdiction of Organization**Aquilex, Inc. (100%) United States of America   Cayman Water Company Limited (100%) Cayman Islands   Consolidated Water (Bahamas) Limited (formerly, Waterfields Company Limited)(90.9%) The Bahamas   Consolidated Water (Belize) Limited(formerly, Belize Water Limited) (100%) Belize   Consolidated Water (Bermuda) Limited (Affiliate) Bermuda   DesalCo Limited (100%) Cayman Islands   Ocean Conversion (BVI) Ltd. (Affiliate) The British Virgin Islands   Ocean Conversion (Cayman) Limited (100%) Cayman Islands
EX-10.41



 Exhibit 10.41 
  





 
  

			
	TO:	  	[name]
		
	DATE:	  	                                     
                   , 2014
		
	RE:	  	Waiver of Good Reason

 As you may know, [Orange], Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) is in the process of negotiating an
Agreement and Plan of Merger by and among             , a Japanese joint stock company, Bigarade Corporation, a Delaware corporation and a direct or indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of
Parent, and the Company (the “Merger Agreement”). 
 You are party to a Change of Control Agreement with the Company dated as of
                                    , 2014 (the “Change of
Control Agreement”) and either an Employment Agreement or severance letter agreement with the Company dated as of
                                    , 2014 (the “Severance
Agreement”), each of which contains a definition of “Good Reason.” 
 For receipt of $1.00 and such other consideration the sufficiency
of which is hereby agreed to and acknowledged, you hereby further agree and acknowledge that the signing of the Merger Agreement, the consummation of the transactions provided for by the Merger Agreement, and/or any change in your position,
authority, duties, reporting relationship or responsibilities that is caused by such signing or consummation solely by reason of the Company no longer being a publicly traded company, will not constitute Good Reason for purposes of the Change of
Control Agreement and the Severance Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, it is expressly understood and agreed that your operating authority will not be reduced in connection with such signing or consummation. 

By your signature below, you hereby provide your agreement and assent to the terms of this letter. 








					
	Respectfully,	 		 	
			
	Avanir Pharmaceuticals, Inc.	 		 	Acceptance:
			
	  
	 		 	  

	[Keith Katkin	 		 	[NAME]
	President & Chief Executive Officer]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7366

WARREN CUTHA HESTER, II,
Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.
BECKLEY REGISTER HERALD, newspaper company; WOAY-TV, television station/broadcasting company; AUDREY STANTON, reporter, Beckley Register Herald,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Thomas E. Johnston, District Judge. (5:07-cv-00891)

Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: December 3, 2009

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Warren Cutha Hester, II, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Warren Cutha Hester, II, appeals the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and

related claims. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Hester v. Beckley Register Hearld , No.
5:07-cv-00891 (S.D.W. Va. July 8, 2009). 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.

AFFIRMED
exv4w1



 





EXHIBIT 4.1








	CUSIP 686164 10 4
















 





OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS, INC.



The Corporation is authorized to issue more than one class of stock. The Corporation shall
furnish without charge to each stockholder who so requests 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 survivorship and not as tenants in common	 	 	 	 	 	under Uniform Gifts 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 POSTAL ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE)



 



 




	 	 	 
	 

	 	Shares
	 	 	 
	of the common stock represented by the within Certificate, and do(es) 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	 	 
	Signatures Guaranteed

	 	NOTICE:
	 	 

THE SIGNATURE(S) TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST
CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME(S) AS WRITTEN UPON THE
FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY
PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY
CHANGE WHATEVER.






	 	 	 	 	 
	By
	 	 

	 	 
	THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST 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.	 	 






KEEP THIS CERTIFICATE IN A SAFE PLACE. IF IT IS LOST, STOLEN OR DESTROYED, THE CORPORATION WILL
REQUIRE A BOND OF INDEMNITY AS A CONDITION TO THE ISSUANCE OF A REPLACEMENT CERTIFICATE.
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute

controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. COA 15

- 343 Filed: 20 October 2015
Guilford County, No s . 14CRS 0 66022, 14CRS 0 24198 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v. JIMMY LEE SULLIVAN
Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 22 August 2014 by Judge R. Stuart Albright in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 12 October 2015

. Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Susannah P. Holloway, for the State. Brock & Meece, P.A., by C. Scott Holmes, for the D efendant.

DILLON , Judge.
A jury found D efendant guilty of robbery with a dangerous weapon and assault with a deadly weapon. Defendant subsequently ple a d ed g uilty to attaining habitual felon status. The trial court arrested judgment on the assault with a deadly weapon conviction and sentenced D efendant as an habitual felon to 127 to 165 months of imprisonment for the robbery with a dangerous weapon conviction

. Defendant gave oral notice of appeal.S TATE V
. S ULLIVAN Opinion of the Court

- 2

- Counsel appointed to represent D efendant directs this Court’s attention to possible issues on appeal, but acknowledges the issues are not sufficient to merit a meaningful argument for relief on appeal . Counsel asks that this Court conduct its own review of the record for possible prejudicial error. Counsel has also shown to the satisfaction of this Court that he has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and State v. Kinch , 314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985), by advising D efendant of his right to file written arguments with this Court and providing him with the documents necessary for him to do so. Defendant has not filed any written arguments on his own behal f with this Court, and a reasonable time in which he could have done so has passed. In accordance with Anders , we have fully examined the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear therein

. We have been unable to find any possible
pr ejudicial error and conclude that the appeal is without merit

. NO ERROR

. Chief Judge McGEE and Judge HUNTER, JR. , concur . Report per Rule 30(e).
EXHIBIT 14
 
 PLM Financial Services Inc.
 Code Of Ethics
 
 The Board of Directors, Executive Officers and Employees of PLM Financial Services Inc., ("the Company") the Manager of the Fund, operate under a Code of Ethics that acknowledges and supports the integrity and values of the Company.
 
 The Code of Ethics ensures all issues are handled honestly and openly, including notification to the appropriate person or persons associated with the Company of any material transaction(s) or relationship(s) that could be expected to become a conflict and that any conflicts of interest between personal and professional relationships are handled expediently and fairly. All Employees are provided with a clearly defined process to follow for any issues they feel are questionable or relate to possible wrongdoing without any fear of repercussion from Management.
 
 PLM Financial Services Inc. conducts its business within the framework of all applicable governmental laws, rules and regulations.
 
 The Code of Ethics is subject to periodic review by the Board of Directors to assure they continue to meet any modifications required by changes in regulations, the activities of the Company or to support the interests of the shareholders.
**Annual
      Statement of Compliance**


**Bear
      Stearns Asset Backed Securities Trust 2006-EC2**





VIA:
      EMAIL





Bear
      Stearns Asset Backed Securities I LLC


383
      Madison Avenue


New
      York,
      New York 10179


regabnotifications@bear.com





EMC
      Mortgage Corporation


909
      Hidden Ridge Drive


Irving,
      Texas 75038





Re:  The
      Pooling and Servicing agreement dated as of February 1, 2006 (the “Agreement”),
      among Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I LLC, as Depositor and Purchaser,
      EMC Mortgage Corporation, as Sponsor and Master Servicer, and LaSalle Bank
      National Association, as Trustee.




I,
      Barbara L. Marik, a First Vice President of LaSalle Bank National Association,
      as Trustee hereby certify that:





(1)
      A
      review of the activities of the Trustee during the preceding calendar year
      and
      of the performance of the Trustee under the Agreement has been made under my
      supervision; and





(2)
      To
      the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Trustee has fulfilled all
      its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such
      year or a portion thereof.






Date: February
      1, 2007





LaSalle
      Bank National Association, as Trustee




/s/
      Barbara L Marik


Barbara
      L. Marik


First
      Vice President
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

EXHIBIT 21 - SUBSIDIARIES


     The following is a list of all subsidiaries of the Company, all of which
are wholly owned:


                                        Jurisdiction           Ownership
Name of Subsidiary                   of  Incorporation         Percentage
------------------                   -----------------         ----------
 
Beepers Plus of Nashville, Inc.          Tennessee                100%
 
Beepers Plus of Memphis, Inc.            Tennessee                100%

Pager Airlines, Inc.                     Delaware                 100%
 
Teletouch Licenses, Inc.                 Delaware                 100%
 
laPageco, Inc.                           Louisiana                100%
 
AACS, Inc.                               Texas                    100%
**Exhibit 31.****4**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Daniel A. Dodson, hereby certify that:

 

|   | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Mastermind, Inc. (the “Company”); |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | 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 report; |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Date: July 9, 2020

 

| /s/ Daniel A. Dodson |
|----------------------|

Daniel A. Dodson

Chief Executive Officer

(*Principal Financial and Accounting Officer*)
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Report of CoConnect, Inc., a Nevada corporation, (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Brad M.
Bingham, Esq., Interim Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify the
following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:





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





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








/s/ Brad M. Bingham,
Esq.


Brad M.
Bingham, Esq.


Interim
Chief Executive Officer





May 20,
2010
#### Melissa CLOER, M.D., Petitioner-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2009-5052.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 13, 2011.

Kevin P. Conway, Conway, Homer & Chin-Caplan, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Anisha S. Dasgupta, Lynn E. Ricciardella, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Appellant moves unopposed for oral argument before the court *m banc.*

Upon consideration thereof:

It Is Ordered That:

The motion is granted. Oral argument for this appeal is scheduled for May 10, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. in courtroom 201, before the court *en banc.*This appeal will have 30 minutes per side for a total argument time of 1 hour. The parties shall notify the clerk in writing of the name of *878the counsel who will present oral argument no later than April 25, 2011.
Amend #1 to Comverge 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.35 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 
 TO 
 COMVERGE, INC. 2006 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN 
 WHEREAS, Comverge, Inc.
(the “Company”) and the stockholders of the Company have heretofore adopted and approved the Comverge, Inc. 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”); and 
 WHEREAS, the board of directors of the Company (the “Board”) and the compensation committee of the Board has determined that it would be
in the best interests of the Company to amend the Plan; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended, effective on the date of
approval by the Board, as follows: 
  

	 	1.	 	The first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1.3 of the Plan be amended to read as follows: 

 “Subject to adjustment as set forth below, the aggregate number of Shares that may be issued under the Plan shall not exceed 8,312,073 Shares,
consisting of the sum of 4,749,371 Shares available for issuance under the Prior Plan which remain available for the grant of Awards immediately prior to the Effective Date, plus an additional number of 3,562,702 “new” Shares available
under the Plan.” 
  

	 	2.	 	The final sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1.3 of the Plan be amended to read as follows: 

 “The maximum number of shares of Common Stock that may be issued under this Plan pursuant to Incentive Options shall be 8,312,073 shares.”

  

	 	3.	 	Except as modified herein, the Plan is hereby specifically ratified and affirmed. 

 [Signature Page Follows] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Certificate of Amendment to the Comverge, Inc. 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan is
executed for and on behalf and in the name of the Corporation by its duly authorized officer on March 28, 2007. 
  

			
	COMVERGE, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Robert M. Chiste



			
	Name:	 	Robert M. Chiste
	Title:	 	Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President


 [Signature Page to 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan]
#### Guy A. ZONA and Angelo Castello, Petitioners, v. William T. ROBERTS, Sheriff, etc., and the Attorney General of the State of Florida, Respondents.

No. 79-475 Civ-T-H.

United States District Court, M. D. Florida, Tampa Division.

April 25, 1979.

*259Lloyd C. Mosley and H. Michael Evans, Clearwater, Fla., for petitioners.

ORDER

HODGES, District Judge.

This petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is pending before the United States Magistrate in keeping with the Court’s general order of assignment. In addition, however, Petitioners have filed an “application for stay of sentence and for permission to remain on bail.”

It is now settled, despite the lack of specific statutory authority, that “it is within the inherent power of a District Court of the United States to enlarge a state prisoner on bond pending hearing and decision on his application for a writ of habeas corpus.” *In re Wainwright,*518 F.2d 173, 174 (5th Cir. 1975). It is equally clear, however, that when release is sought in a *collateral*proceeding attacking incarceration resulting from a prior *judicial*determination of guilt, exceptional circumstances must be shown in addition to the mere presence of substantial issues raised by the petition. *See Aronson v. May,*85 S.Ct. 3, 13 L.Ed.2d 6 (1964) (Douglas, J., in chambers on application for bail), and *Calley v. Callaway,*496 F.2d 701 (5th Cir. 1974). This is not, in other words, a proceeding governed by the Bail Reform Act (18 U.S.C. § 3141, *et seq.);*and, indeed, the use of the term “bail” is a misnomer in a civil habeas corpus proceeding. *United States ex rel. Thomas v. State of New Jersey,*472 F.2d 735, 741 (3d Cir. 1973), *cert, denied*414 U.S. 878, 94 S.Ct. 121, 38 L.Ed.2d 123 (1973). In the final analysis, therefore, whether the Court should exercise its inherent power to “enlarge” a state prisoner from his post-conviction, post-appeal incarceration is a matter of judicial discretion, not supported by any claim of right; and such discretion should be exercised in favor of release only in the clearest, most exigent circumstances given the usual consideration of comity, the collateral nature of the proceedings, and the prior dissipation of the presumption of innocence by the adjudication of guilt in the state courts. *See Glynn v. Donnelly,*470 F.2d 95 (1st Cir. 1972).

*260Bearing those principles in mind, therefore, it is necessary preliminarily to examine each of Petitioners’ constitutional claims in order to determine the threshold issue as to whether Petitioners have demonstrated a “high probability of success.” *Calley v. Callaway, supra*at 702. Accordingly, the pending application is referred to the United States Magistrate for his consideration and recommendation. He may, of course, require a response from the Respondents and conduct such proceedings as he deems necessary to a proper determination of the issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.