alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 12.1**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

 

I, Jorge Carlos Bledel, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of BBVA Banco Francés S.A.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary 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 annual report; 

 

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

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: 

 

a) designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such 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 byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared; 

 

b) [Reserved]; 

 

c) evaluated the effectivenessof the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual 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 suchevaluation; and 

 

d) disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer andI 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 function):

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control 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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting. 

 

Date: June 29, 2004
# C_2010161EN.01003501.xml

| 19.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/35

---

Action brought on 9 April 2010 — European Commission v France

(Case C-179/10)

(2010/C 161/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to implement Commission Decision 2005/238/EC of 14 July 2004 concerning aid granted to the fisheries and aquaculture sector in Corsica from 1986 to 1999 (1) by recovering from the beneficiaries thereof aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Article 1 of that decision and by failing to inform the Commission of the measures taken to comply with that decision, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Articles 4 and 5 of that decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to implement Commission Decision 2005/238/EC of 14 July 2004 concerning aid granted to the fisheries and aquaculture sector in Corsica from 1986 to 1999 (1) by recovering from the beneficiaries thereof aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Article 1 of that decision and by failing to inform the Commission of the measures taken to comply with that decision, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Articles 4 and 5 of that decision;

| — | order the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pursuant to Article 4 of Commission Decision 2005/238/EC, France is required to inform the Commission, within two months of notification of that decision, of the measures taken to comply with it. In the present case, more than 5 years after the receipt of the Decision by the French authorities and despite seven reminders, the aid granted has not yet been recovered from the beneficiary firms and no effective measures have been taken to such effect. The defendant, furthermore, has not argued that it is absolutely impossible to implement that Decision.

---

(1)  Commission Decision 2005/239/EC of 14 July 2004 concerning certain aid measures applied by France to assist fish farmers and fishermen (OJ 2005 L 74, p. 49).

---
### §71. Election

The affairs of each association shall be managed by not less than five directors, who shall be elected by the shareholders at a meeting to be held at any time before the association is authorized by the Comptroller of the Currency to commence the business of banking; and afterward at meetings to be held on such day of each year as is specified therefor in the bylaws. The directors shall hold office for a period of not more than 3 years, and until their successors are elected and have qualified. In accordance with regulations issued by the Comptroller of the Currency, a national bank may adopt bylaws that provide for staggering the terms of its directors.

(R.S. §5145; Pub. L. 88–232, §1, Dec. 23, 1963, 77 Stat. 472; Pub. L. 106–569, title XII, §1205(a), Dec. 27, 2000, 114 Stat. 3033.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

R.S. §5145 derived from act June 3, 1864, ch. 106, §§9, 10, 13 Stat. 102, which was the National Bank Act. See section 38 of this title.

#### Amendments

2000—Pub. L. 106–569 substituted "for a period of not more than 3 years" for "for one year" and inserted at end "In accordance with regulations issued by the Comptroller of the Currency, a national bank may adopt bylaws that provide for staggering the terms of its directors."

1963—Pub. L. 88–232 substituted "on such day of each year as is specified therefor in the bylaws" for "on such day in January of each year as is specified therefor in the articles of association".

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Exception as to Transfer of Functions

Functions vested by any provision of law in Comptroller of the Currency, referred to in this section, not included in transfer of functions to Secretary of the Treasury, see note set out under section 1 of this title.
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS D IVISION O NE

S TATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.
J AMES ELDON ROGERS , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA-CR 20-0534 PRPC

P etition for Review from the Superior Court in Yavapai County No. P1300CR2000-0367 The Honorable Michael R. Bluff , Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL James Eldon Rogers , Tucson Petitioner

M EMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge David B. Gass, Judge Michael J. Brown, and Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court. FILED 7-29-2021STATE v. ROGERS Decision of the Court

2 PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner James Eldon Rogers seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief. This is petitioner’s ninth petition. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1, 260 P.3d 1102, 1103 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of d iscretion on review). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court’s order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the petition for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion. ¶4 We grant revie w and deny relief.
<Page>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
reports included in this Form 10-K dated March 19, 2002, into the Company's
previously filed Registration Statements File Nos. 33-72852, 33-34250, 33-91714,
333-30099, 333-53253, 333-71423, 333-81459, 333-84391, 333-88807, 333-40566, and
333-42104.

/s/Arthur Andersen LLP
Vienna, Virginia
March 26, 2002
### §2308. Implied warranties

#### (a) Restrictions on disclaimers or modifications

No supplier may disclaim or modify (except as provided in subsection (b)) any implied warranty to a consumer with respect to such consumer product if (1) such supplier makes any written warranty to the consumer with respect to such consumer Product, or (2) at the time of sale, or within 90 days thereafter, such supplier enters into a service contract with the consumer which applies to such consumer product.

#### (b) Limitation on duration

For purposes of this chapter (other than section 2304(a)(2) of this title), implied warranties may be limited in duration to the duration of a written warranty of reasonable duration, if such limitation is conscionable and is set forth in clear and unmistakable language and prominently displayed on the face of the warranty.

#### (c) Effectiveness of disclaimers, modifications, or limitations

A disclaimer, modification, or limitation made in violation of this section shall be ineffective for purposes of this chapter and State law.

(Pub. L. 93–637, title I, §108, Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2189.)
### §3731. Definitions

As used in this subchapter—

(1) "Reserve officer" means a commissioned officer in the Reserve, except an officer excluded by section 3732 of this title or a commissioned warrant officer; and

(2) "discharged" means released from an appointment as a Reserve officer.

(Added Pub. L. 96–322, §1, Aug. 4, 1980, 94 Stat. 1007, §720; renumbered §3731 and amended Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §§118(b), 123(b)(2), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4233, 4240.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 770 of this title prior to the complete revision of former chapter 21 of this title by Pub. L. 96–322.

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–282, §118(b), renumbered section 720 of this title as this section.

Par. (1). Pub. L. 115–282, §123(b)(2), substituted "section 3732" for "section 721".
### §3609. Void lease or contract provisions

Any provision in any lease or contract requiring unit owners or the owners' association, in any conversion project involving a contract meeting the requirements of section 3607 of this title of in any project involving a lease meeting the requirements of section 3608 of this title, to reimburse, regardless of outcome, the developer, his successor, or affiliate of the developer for attorneys' fees or money judgments, in a suit between unit owners or the owners' association and the developer arising under the lease or agreement, is against public policy and void.

(Pub. L. 96–399, title VI, §610, Oct. 8, 1980, 94 Stat. 1678.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 8, 1980, except that prohibition included in this section as it relates to a lease with respect to which a cause of action may be established under section 3608 of this title, shall be effective one year after Oct. 8, 1980, see section 618 of Pub. L. 96–399, set out as a note under section 3601 of this title.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1952-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of California (FEMA-1952-DR), dated January 26, 2011, and related determinations.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         March 3, 2011.                    

      ( print page 13204)    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of California is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of January 26, 2011.

Madera and Mariposa Counties for Public Assistance.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2011-5420 Filed 3-9-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of catalogingand locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****Instructionsfor Form 990-C, farmers� cooperative association income tax return**** 
SuDocNumber:T22.51:990-C/INST./
ItemNumber:0964-E(online)
CGPSystem Number:000553527
 
1990
1992
1994
1995
1996
1998
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
 **
2

For Hawaii, DCP estimated 8% PCA for counties of Hawaii based on a modified version of 

Agency’s PCA estimation methodology. In addition, DCP also concluded that a review of 

drinking water supplies using surface water as the source of drinking water reveal that 

agricultural land use is not significant in areas supplying water for surface water supplies. 

According the report, a PCA value of 23% would result in a passing drinking water assessment 

assuming a threshold concentration of 80 μg/L for oxamyl uses on ginger and pineapple uses. 

For Puerto Rico, DCP used two options to calculate PCA. The first (PCA1) option was based on 

all crops and the second (PCA2) option was based on excluding pasture and glazing land from all 

crops. The estimated PCAs for both methods were less than 39% using two watershed scales (8-

digit HUC and 10-digit HUC). DCP concluded that the estimated PCAs adjusted EDWC 

(Estimated Drinking Water Concentration) for oxamyl uses on banana/plantain, pineapple and 

yams will pass the assumed threshold concentration of 80 μg/L. However, the estimated <39% 

PCA determined by DCP for Puerto Rico was based on a modified version of Agency’s PCA 

estimation methodology. 

Therefore, EFED calculated the preliminary PCAs for both Hawaii and Puerto Rico using a 

simplified version of standard EPA procedure for calculating PCAs. PCA's for Hawaii were 

calculated per island and Puerto Rico PCAs were calculated using HUC8 watershed. In each 

case, a simplified total cropland PCA method was used. PCAs were calculated as the total area in 

cropland divided by the total area (HUC8 for Puerto Rico or Hawaii islands). This method 

disregarded the NASS data unlike DCP method, which is not a part of current standard method 

for calculating PCA following the standard EPA procedure for calculating PCAs. However, the 

methods used in determining PCA for this evaluation and by DCP are slightly differ from EPA’s 

standard method for calculating PCA. In addition, there is an uncertainty with the quality of the 

land cover products used in this analysis. For Puerto Rico, the classes labeled "Ag", "Ag/Hay", 

and "Pasture" were used. The classes labeled "active sun/shade coffee, submountain and lower 

mountain wet forest/shrub" and "lowland moist coconut palm forest" were not included in the 

analysis. If the coffee/forest class were added to the ag values, maximum PCAs would approach 

above 39% and will be exceeding the assumed threshold of EDWC for Puerto Rico. However, 

EFED concurs with DCP that PCA adjusted EDWCs for modeled crops for Hawaii and Puerto 

Rico will be lower than the assumed threshold concentration of 80 μg/L.
美国农业部农村发展局:

美国农村购买、建

造或维修房屋的合

作伙伴

共促美国繁荣发展

有关美国农业部所有农村发展计划的信息

可在rd.usda.gov 查询,或向你当地的农

村发展办公室查询。各州办事处的名单见

https://go.usa.gov/xS9DA。

我是否符合资格?

合格的申请人必须是:

• 没有适度的、安全的住房

• 无法从其他资源获得贷款

• 同意将该房产作为其主要住所使用

• 在法律上有能力获得贷款的义务

• 符合美国公民身份或合格的非公民要求

• 没有被暂停或取消参与联邦计划的资格

物业必须位于符合条件的农村地区,

并适用贷款限额。请访问美国农业部

收入和财产资格网站(可通过此链

接:go.usa.gov/xzcdM)了解详情。

rd.usda.gov

1 (800) 670-6553 (免费电话)

美国农业部是一个平等机会的提供者、雇主和贷款人。

PA-2254 | 2022年9月

取代PA-2177,”拥有你的未来。在美国农业部农村发展局的帮助下购买、建造

或维修你的房屋”
买房或建房

美国农村是美国的故乡。它不仅仅是一个伟大的

居住地,它的人民构成了美国的精神和性格。有一

个可以称之为“家“的地方,为农村家庭的发展和

繁荣提供了一个坚实的基础。

如果你无法从私人贷款机构获得抵押贷款,你可

能有资格从美国农业部农村发展局申请贷款。我

们的房屋所有权计划有以下特点:

• 无首付

• 没有私人抵押贷款保险(PMI)

• 负担得起的、固定利率的融资,最高可达贷款

的100%

• 可选择将过户费和维修费包括在你的贷款中

稳定和可负担的住房有助于全国的小城镇保持

健康和繁荣。通过我们的农村住房计划,美国农

业部农村发展局提供容易获得的低利率融资,使

符合条件的农村家庭能够购买、维修或租赁房

屋。通过避免大额首付,我们的低息贷款帮助更

多的农村人成为房主,并开始积累一代人的财

富。在一些地区,我们与非营利组织合作,帮助家

庭建造自己的房屋,减少抵押贷款的费用。

通过我们的房屋所有权计划,符合条件的申请人

可以购买现有的房屋,建造新的房屋,为建造房

屋准备土地,或者在某些情况下为现有的房屋进

行再融资。对于收入有限的家庭和个人,我们还

提供维修贷款,或改善住房或使其现代化。

援助是提供给指定为“农村“地区的合格申请

人。根据联邦法律,每个计划对“农村地区“的

定义都不一样。为了获得准确的信息,一定要参

考具体的计划规定,可在rd.usda.gov.上查阅。

或者,联系你当地的美国农业部农村发展办公

室。在go.usa.gov/xS9DA网站上有一份各州办

事处的名单。
### §531. Exemption from taxation

Federal reserve banks, including the capital stock and surplus therein and the income derived therefrom shall be exempt from Federal, State, and local taxation, except taxes upon real estate.

(Dec. 23, 1913, ch. 6, §7(c), 38 Stat. 258; Mar. 3, 1919, ch. 101, §1, 40 Stat. 1314; Pub. L. 103–66, title III, §3002(c)(2), Aug. 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 338.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is comprised of subsec. (c) [formerly third undesignated par.] of section 7 of act Dec. 23, 1913. Subsec. (a) of section 7 and subsec. (b) [enacted by Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, §1000(a)(5) [title III, §302(2)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–304] of section 7 are classified to section 289 of this title. Another subsec. (b) of section 7 is classified to section 290 of this title.

#### Amendments

1993—Pub. L. 103–66 inserted section catchline.
# C_2006294EN.01004002.xml

| 2.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/40

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 — Archer Daniels Midland v Commission

(Case T-329/01) (1)

1

(Competition - Cartels - Sodium Gluconate - Article 81 EC - Fine - Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Leniency Notice - Principle of proportionality - Equal treatment - Non-retroactivity - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence)

(2006/C 294/85)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Archer Daniels Midland Co. (Decatur, Illinois, United States) (represented by: C.O. Lenz, lawyer, L. Martin Alegi, M. Garcia and E. Batchelor, Solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Whelan, A. Bouquet and W. Wils, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment of Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2001) 2931 final of 2 October 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/36.756 — Sodium Gluconate) in so far as it pertains to the applicant, or at least to the extent that it finds the applicant was party to an infringement after 4 October 1994, and for annulment of Article 3 of that decision in so far as it pertains to the applicant or, in the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on it by the decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Archer Daniels Midland Co. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Archer Daniels Midland Co. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 84, 6.4.2002.

1

---
Exhibit


EXHIBIT 10.15




Summary of Benjamin A. Pardo 2016 Compensation




The Knoll, Inc. compensation committee approved an annual base salary of $295,000 for Benjamin A. Pardo, with a bonus target of $285,000.  Mr. Pardo is also entitled to participate in the benefit plans provided by Knoll that are generally available to Knoll employees.