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

NUMBER SHARES

AFS

ALARION FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.

INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

COMMON STOCK

THIS
CERTIFIES THAT

is the owner of:



---

FULLY PAID AND NONASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK OF ALARION FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.

$0.01 PAR VALUE PER SHARE

The shares represented by this Certificate are transferable only on the stock transfer books of Alarion
Financial Services, Inc. by the holder of record hereof, or by his duly authorized attorney or legal representative, upon the surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate, and the shares represented hereby, are issued and shall
be held subject to all the provisions of the Articles of Incorporation of Alarion Financial Services, Inc., and any amendments thereto (copies of which are on file with the Corporate Secretary of Alarion Financial Services, Inc. and the Secretary of
State of the State of Florida) to all of which provisions the holder by acceptance hereof assents. The shares evidenced by this Certificate are not of an insurable type and are not insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Alarion Financial Services, Inc. has caused this Certificate to be executed by the signature of its duly authorized officers and
has caused its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed.

Dated:
, 2005



|                    |  |                                      
|------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|                    |  | SEAL                                 
|                    | 
|                    |  |                                      
|Corporate Secretary |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



---

For value received

hereby sell(s), assign(s) and transfer(s) unto:



|                                                                              |  |                               
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------
|Please insert social security number or other identifying number of assignee: |  | ______________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(Please print or typewrite
name and address including postal zip code of assignee)

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

shares represented by the within certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute(s)
and appoint(s)  as the Attorney to transfer the
said shares on the books of Alarion Financial Services with full power of substitution in the premises.

Date
,



Signature


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.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-21-00423-CV

Renovate In Texas and Johnie B. Wasley, Jr., Appellants

v.

The Steam Team, Inc., Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. C-1-CV-21-000966, THE HONORABLE ERIC SHEPPERD, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The parties have filed a joint motion to dismiss the appeal, vacate the trial court’s 

judgment, and remand the case for rendition of a new judgment in accordance with their 

settlement agreement. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B). We grant the motion. We dismiss the 

appeal, and we set aside the trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits and remand the 

case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ agreement. 

See id.

__________________________________________

Gisela D. Triana, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Kelly

Vacated and Remanded

Filed: October 29, 2021
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Agile Software Corporation (the Company) for the quarter ended July 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, Bryan D. Stolle, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to my knowledge:



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



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and consolidated results of operations of the Company for the periods presented.



|                        |  |                                        
|----------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------
|Date: September 8, 2004 |  | /s/ Bryan D. Stolle                    
|                        |  | Bryan D. Stolle Chief Executive Officer
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3542 

To direct the Architect of the Capitol to fly the flag of a State over the 

Capitol each year on the anniversary of the date of the State’s admission 

to the Union. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2009 

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To direct the Architect of the Capitol to fly the flag of 

a State over the Capitol each year on the anniversary 

of the date of the State’s admission to the Union. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘State Admission Day 

5 Recognition Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FLYING STATE FLAG OVER CAPITOL ON ANNIVER7 SARY OF STATE’S ADMISSION TO UNION. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—To honor the anniversary of each 

9 State’s admission to the Union, the Architect of the CapVerDate Nov 24 2008 00:30 Sep 10, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3542.IH H3542

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3542 IH

1 itol shall fly the flag of the State over the Capitol each 

2 year on the anniversary of the date of the State’s admis3 sion to the Union. 

4 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The Architect of the Capitol 

5 shall fly the first flag of a State over the Capitol under 

6 this section on the first December 7 which occurs after 

7 the date of the enactment of this Act, in honor of the anni8 versary of the admission of Delaware, the first State ad9 mitted to the Union. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3539 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.3539

                      One Hundred Eleventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
   427 Harrison Avenue in Harrison, New Jersey, as the ``Patricia D. 
                  McGinty-Juhl Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PATRICIA D. MCGINTY-JUHL POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 427 Harrison Avenue in Harrison, New Jersey, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Patricia D. McGinty-Juhl Post Office 
Building''.
    (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 ``Patricia 
D. McGinty-Juhl Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis GOMEZ-REGIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-30151.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.*

Filed March 17, 2011.

Anthony G. Hall, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Justin David Whatcott, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Leo Griffard, Leo N. Griffard, Boise, ID, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Luis Gomez-Regin appeals from the 144-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Gomez-Regin contends the district court erred by applying a preponderance of the evidence standard rather than a clear and convincing evidence standard in determining whether he had an aggravating role in the offense, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(b). The three-level increase in offense level resulting from the district court’s aggravating role determination is not “extremely disproportionate” and therefore does not warrant application of the clear and convincing evidence standard. *See United States v. Johansson,*249 F.3d 848, 856 (9th Cir.2001) (finding a four-level increase to be not extremely disproportionate).

To the extent that Gomez-Regin contends the district court erred by applying the adjustment for his role as a manager or supervisor, the district court did not clearly err in light of evidence that Gomez-Regin supplied methamphetamine to some of his co-conspirators, determined who performed particular duties, and financed the initial purchase of methamphetamine. *See United States v. Egge,*223 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir.2000) (three-level adjustment was proper where defendant used others to help him sell drugs).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3493 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3493

To amend title 5, United States Code, to limit the number of local wage 
        areas allowable within a General Schedule pay locality.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 31, 2009

Mr. Kanjorski introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 5, United States Code, to limit the number of local wage 
        areas allowable within a General Schedule pay locality.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Locality Pay Equity Act''.

SEC. 2. LIMITING THE NUMBER OF LOCAL WAGE AREAS DEFINED WITHIN A 
              GENERAL SCHEDULE PAY LOCALITY.

    (a) Local Wage Area Limitation.--Section 5343(a) of title 5, United 
States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)(B)(i), by striking ``(but such'' and 
        all that follows through ``are employed)'';
            (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' after the 
        semicolon;
            (3) in paragraph (5), by striking the period after 
        ``Islands'' and inserting ``; and''; and
            (4) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(6) the Office of Personnel Management shall define not 
        more than 1 local wage area within a pay locality, except that 
        this paragraph shall not apply to the pay locality designated 
        as `Rest of United States'.''.
    (b) Pay Locality Defined.--Section 5342(a) of title 5, United 
States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking ``and'' after the 
        semicolon;
            (2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period after 
        ``employee'' and inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(4) `pay locality' has the same meaning as is given such 
        term in section 5302(5).''.

SEC. 3. REGULATIONS.

    The Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall prescribe 
any regulations necessary to carry out the purpose of this Act, 
including regulations to ensure that the enactment of this Act shall 
not have the effect of reducing any rate of basic pay payable to any 
individual who is serving as a prevailing rate employee (as defined by 
section 5342(a)(2) of title 5, United States Code).

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect at 
the start of the first full pay period beginning at least 180 days 
after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EX-34 (f)
(logo) KPMG

KPMG LLP
1601 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2499

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Members
Regulus Group LLC:

We have examined management's assessment for those customers that management has
informed us have requested confirmation of compliance, included in the
accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing
Criteria, that Regulus Group LLC complied with the servicing criteria set forth
in Item 1122(d)(2)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(iv) of the Securities and Exchange
Commission's Regulation AB for remittance processing services to those issuers
of asset backed securities and servicers of loan and/or receivables portfolios
that include pool assets for asset backed securities transactions (the Platform)
as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006. Regulus Group LLC has determined
that the remainder of the servicing criteria are not applicable to the
activities it performs with respect to the Platform as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2006. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with
those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
management's assessment about the Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the
servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of
less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities that
comprise the Platform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities
related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those
selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with
the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected
transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period
covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether
errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may
have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company
during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any
other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the
Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assessment that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006
is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Philadelphia, PA
February 22, 2007

KPMG LLP, a U.S. limited liability partnership, is the U.S. member firm of KPMG
International, a Swiss cooperative.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 MARCH 20, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-14285

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 06-00193-CR-MCR

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOHN Q. DURFEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

_________________________

(March 20, 2008)

Before DUBINA, BLACK and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher N. Patterson, appointed counsel for John Q. Durfey in this

direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct.
2

1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals

that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Durfey’s convictions and

sentences are AFFIRMED.
Form of Coverage Letter under Pemco Aviation Group Inc Separation Benefits Plan



 Exhibit 10.2 
  
 [letterhead] 
 [date] 
  

					
	 By Hand Delivery
  

  

  

	 	 	 	 

  
 Dear
                                        
                            : 
  
 I am writing to inform you that Pemco Aviation Group, Inc. has implemented a Separation Benefit Plan. Enclosed for your
review is a copy of the Plan, which I encourage you to read carefully. This letter confirms that you are covered by the Plan and serves as your “Coverage Letter” (see Section 2(d) of the enclosed Plan). 
  
 If your employment is involuntarily terminated prior to December 1, 2007
or if the monetary terms of your employment are reduced without your written consent prior to December 1, 2007, you will be eligible to receive a “Separation Benefit” from the Plan. However, if you resign your employment or your
employment is terminated for “Reason” (see Section 2(j) of the Plan), you will not be eligible for any Plan benefits. 
  
 A Separation Benefit that becomes payable will equal the amount of your “Base Salary,” as defined by the Plan Section 2(a), paid per
regular payroll procedures for your “Participation Period.” Your Participation Period will be the             -day period that immediately follows your termination date. During
your Participation Period, you would remain covered by the employee benefit plans in which you were participating immediately before your termination date, and, subject to the terms and conditions of such plans, the Participation Period coverage
will be provided on the same terms and conditions that applied immediately before your termination date. 
  
 The Separation Benefit Plan has been made available to you in recognition of the key role that you play during this important period, the importance of
your contributions to our financial success, and the significant work that lies ahead. Please keep this letter confidential, as not all employees are eligible to participate in the Separation Benefit Plan. Feel free to contact me with any questions.

  

	
	 Very truly yours,

	
	 Ronald A. Aramini, President
 and Chief Executive Officer
#### Hector Geovany ELIAS-CORTEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-70756.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*654Submitted April 22, 2008.*

Filed May 2, 2008.

Steve Paek, Law Office of Steve Paek, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Monica Antoun, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Hector Geovany Elias-Cortez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence. *See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481 & n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Elias-Cortez *655failed to establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal, because he did not provide evidence indicating that he was or would be targeted on account of imputed political opinion. *See Ochoa v. Gonzales,*406 F.3d 1166, 1170-72 (9th Cir.2005).

Elias-Cortez contends that as a disc jockey he was persecuted on account of his membership in a particular social group, and unrelatedly, that he is eligible for CAT relief. However, Elias-Cortez failed to raise either contention to the BIA. Accordingly, we dismiss both contentions. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining that this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-20966

Conference Calendar

 

EMMITT WILLIAM, III,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DR. R. REED; DR. C.V. DINH,

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CV-4135

--------------------

February 20, 2002

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The motion by Emmitt William, III, Texas prisoner 

# 849867, for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on

appeal is DENIED. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); FED. R. APP. P.

24(a); Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). The

instant appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. 

Accordingly, it is DISMISSED. See Baugh, 117 F.2d at 202 n.24;

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-220 (5th Cir. 1983).

Both the district court’s dismissal of William’s complaint

and this court’s dismissal of this appeal count as “strikes” for
No. 01-20966

-2-

purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103

F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). William is CAUTIONED that if

he accumulates a third “strike” under § 1915(g), he will not be

able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he

is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED; IFP MOTION DENIED; THREE-STRIKES WARNING

ISSUED.