alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                    Form 6-K

       REPORT OF FOREIGN PRIVATE ISSUER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16
                    UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                             Date: January 20, 2004

                        Commission File Number 001-12510
                                               ---------

                                   ROYAL AHOLD
                 -----------------------------------------------
                 (Translation of registrant's name into English)


               Albert Heijnweg 1, 1507 EH Zaandam, The Netherlands
               ---------------------------------------------------
                     (Address of principal executive office)



     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual
reports under cover of Form 20-F or Form 40-F.

                  Form 20-F   X             Form 40-F
                             ---                       ---

     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the information
contained in this Form is also thereby furnishing the information to the
Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                      Yes                     No   X
                           ---                    ---

     If "Yes" is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the
registrant in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82-________.
<PAGE>
     On January 20, 2004, Koninklijke Ahold N.V. ("Royal Ahold" or the
"Company") issued a press release announcing additional steps in its corporate
restructuring. A copy of the press release is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1.
<PAGE>

                                   SIGNATURES

     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.


                                       KONINKLIJKE AHOLD N.V.

                                       /s/ H.R. Ryopponen
                                       -----------------------------------------
Date:  January 21, 2004                By:     H.R. Ryopponen
                                       Title:  Executive Vice President and CFO
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT INDEX



The following exhibit has been filed as part of this Form 6-K:


Exhibit   Description
-------   -----------

99.1      Royal Ahold press release, dated January 20, 2004, announcing
          additional steps in its corporate restructuring
Exhibit 4.6


 


DESCRIPTION OF CAPITAL STOCK


 


The rights of our
stockholders are be governed by Nevada law, and our Articles of Incorporation, as amended, and our Bylaws. The following briefly
summarizes the material terms of our Common Stock.


 


Common Stock


 


The Company is authorized
to issue 250,000,000 shares of common stock at a par value of $0.0001 and as of December 31, 2020 had 7,797,004 shares of common
stock issued and outstanding.


 


Dividend
Rights


 


The holders of outstanding
shares of our common stock are entitled to receive dividends out of funds legally available at the times and in the amounts that
our board of directors may determine.


 


Voting
Rights


 


Each holder of our
common stock is entitled to one vote for each share of common stock held on all matters submitted to a vote of stockholders. Cumulative
voting for the election of directors is not provided for in our articles of incorporation, which means that the holders of a majority
of our shares of common stock voted can elect all of the directors then standing for election.


 


Preemptive
or Similar Rights


 


Our Common Stock is
not entitled to preemptive rights and is not subject to conversion or redemption.


 


Liquidation
Rights


 


Upon our liquidation,
dissolution, or winding-up, the assets legally available for distribution to our stockholders would be distributable
ratably among the holders of our Common Stock outstanding at that time after payment of other claims of creditors.
§ 4.1283 Service. ( a ) The appellant shall serve personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested, a copy of the notice of appeal and a copy of any statement of reasons, written arguments, or other documents on each party within 15 days after filing the document. Proof of service shall be filed with the Board within 15 days after service.
( b ) Failure to serve may subject the appeal to summary dismissal pursuant to § 4.1285.
#### § 4.1117 Reconsideration.

A party may file a motion for reconsideration of any decision of the Board under this subpart within 60 days after the date of the decision. The provisions of § 4.403 apply to a motion filed under this paragraph.

[75 FR 64669, Oct. 20, 2010]
11-1 

11.0 Comprehensive Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions

40 CFR Section 51.308(f) requires states to revise their regional haze 

implementation plan and submit a plan revision to the EPA by July 31, 2018 and 

every ten years thereafter. In accordance with the requirements listed in Section 

51.308(f) of the federal rule for regional haze, New York commits to revising and 

submitting this regional haze implementation plan by July 31, 2018 and every ten 

years thereafter as required. 

In addition, 40 CFR Section 51.308(g) requires periodic reports on progress 

being made toward the reasonable progress goals established for each 

mandatory Class I area. These reports will be based on reasonable progress 

evaluations from states with Class I areas to which New York sources are 

contributory. 

In accordance with the requirements listed in Section 51.308(g) of the federal 

rule for regional haze, New York commits to submitting this report to the EPA 

every five years following the initial submittal of this SIP. This report will be in the 

form of a SIP revision. 

All requirements listed in Section 40 CFR 51.308(g) that apply to states that do 

not contain a Class I area shall be addressed in the SIP revision for reasonable 

progress. The requirements listed in Section 51.308(g) include the following: 

$ A description of the implementation status; 

$ Summary of emission reductions achieved thus far; 

$ Class I state assessments of changes in visibility conditions at each Class 

I area affected by sources in New York (current vs. baseline) based on 

five year averages of annual values for 20 percent best and worst days; 

$ An analysis of emission changes over the five-year period; 

$ Analysis of any significant anthropogenic emissions changes that have 

impeded progress within New York State; 

$ An assessment of the sufficiency of this implementation plan to meet 

RPGs; 

New York commits to continue consulting with the FLMs on the implementation 

of Section 51.308 and this SIP, including development and review of SIP 

revisions and five-year progress reports, and on the implementation of other 

programs affecting the impairment of visibility in Class I areas. Finally, New York 

commits to meet the required periodic updates of the emission inventory as 

required under 51.308(d)(4)(v).
Document

Exhibit 10.57

April 7, 2020


The Nominating and Governance Committee of the
Board of Directors of Dell Technologies Inc.


Ladies and Gentlemen:


I confirm that I have been informed of and fully understand the disruption and uncertainty caused by the COVID-19 pandemic on the business and financial health of Dell Technologies Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company”). Effective beginning May 2, 2020 and for a period continuing through January 29, 2021, I knowingly and willingly agree to forgo receipt of all of my base salary except to the extent necessary to fund, on an after-tax basis, my contributions to continue to participate in the Company’s health and welfare benefit plans (the “Salary Reduction”). I understand that the Salary Reduction may end sooner if agreed to by the Nominating and Governance Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company. I hereby waive any claim that I might otherwise have under my employment agreement, applicable law or otherwise and release the Company from any liability with respect to the Salary Reduction. Notwithstanding the foregoing, I understand that the Salary Reduction does not modify other rights under my employment agreement or other compensation except with respect to incentive arrangements that are determined by reference to my base salary. Except for the amount of compensation for paid time off, the Salary Reduction is not intended to reduce any other Company employee benefit provided to me that is determined by reference to my base salary, except as may be required by applicable law.  This waiver is provided with the understanding that in all other respects the terms of my employment remain in full force and effect and are unchanged.
                            




By:_/s/ Michael S. Dell______
Name: Michael S. Dell




DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC.




By: _/s/ Robert Potts________
Name: Robert Potts
Title: Senior Vice President and Assistant Secretary




1
#### § 4110.1-1 Acquired lands.

Where lands have been acquired by the Bureau of Land Management through purchase, exchange, Act of Congress or Executive Order, and an agreement or the terms of the act or Executive Order provide that the Bureau of Land Management shall honor existing grazing permits or leases, such permits or leases are governed by the terms and conditions in effect at the time of acquisition by the Bureau of Land Management, and are not subject to the requirements of § 4110.1.

[60 FR 9962, Feb. 22, 1995]
Exhibit
      32.1





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of General Motors Corporation (the
      "Corporation") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Sean
      Yaakov Fulda _,
      Principal Executive Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that
      to the best of my knowledge:





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
      Corporation.





By /s/
      Sean Yaakov Fulda




Sean
      Yaakov Fulda


Principal
      Executive Officer


May
      19,
      2006
J

- S54037

- 15

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 BANK OF NEW YORK MEL LON AS TRUSTEE FOR GE

- WMC ASSET

- BACKED PASS

- THROUGH CERTIFICATE SERIES 2005

- 2 TRUST, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

v. ANTHONY JOHN CONTE, III, A/K/A ANTHONY JOHN CONTE AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EASTERN DISTRICT
APPEAL OF: ANTHONY J OHN CONTE, III, A/K/A ANTHONY JOHN C ONTE
No. 666 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Order January 29 , 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s): July Term, 2010, No. 532

BEFORE: BOWES, PANELLA, AND FITZGERALD * JJ.
DISSENTING STATEMENT BY BOWES, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 30, 2015 I respectfully disagree with the majority’s disposition of this matter as I conclude that the failure to adjudicate the rights of the federal government by entry of a judgment is not fatal to our jurisdiction. Appellee instituted this mortgage foreclosur e action after Appellant defaulted on a mortgage that had been assigned to Appellee. Appellee was owed nearly $530,000 when this case was instituted. It filed the complaint solely to foreclose on the mortgaged property. The complaint stated that the Uni ted States of America was a named defendant because it had filed aJ

- S54037

- 15

- 2

-

federal tax lien against Appellant, and it delineated the amount of the tax lien. In my view, the failure to obtain a judgment against the federal government was unnecessary. The federal tax lien and its amount were outlined in the complaint, and its order of payment will be determined when the proceeds of the sheriff’s sale are distributed. We have previously held that an order either denying or granting a petition to set aside a sherif f’s sale is a final, appealable order under Pa.R.A.P. 341 since it constitutes a final adjudication of all matters before the court. See Nat'l Penn Bank v. Shaffer , 672 A.2d 326, 328 n. 4 (Pa. Super. 1996) (ruling specifically that an order granting petit ion to set aside sheriff’s sale was final appealable order since order “completely disposed of all of the parties' claims[.]”); see also Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Lark , 73 A.3d 1265 (Pa. Super 2013) (accepting jurisdiction over an order denying
a motion to set aside a sheriff’s sale). Accordingly, I would address the merits of this appeal rather than quash.
§ 4.833 Prehearing conferences. ( a ) Within 15 days after the answer has been filed, the administrative law judge will establish a prehearing conference date for all parties including persons or organizations whose petition requesting party status has not been ruled upon. Written notice of the prehearing conference shall be sent by the administrative law judge.
( b ) At the prehearing conference the following matters, among others, shall be considered: ( 1 ) Simplification and delineation of the issues to be heard;
( 2 ) stipulations;
( 3 ) limitation of number of witnesses; and exchange of witness lists;
( 4 ) procedure applicable to the proceeding;
( 5 ) offers of settlement; and
( 6 ) scheduling of the dates for exchange of exhibits. Additional prehearing conferences may be scheduled at the discretion of the administrative law judge, upon his own motion or the motion of a party.
## Record of Contacts .;1,0 

# 10- 0.2).. I FOrtIS Docket No. 

### FAA~

__ •
_ With whom outside the fAA has this proposaJ been discussed (e.g .• AT A, RAA, ALP A, etc.)? 

### " '"·~:t~~o·iiiDiii:!i;'~~,' '._ - "'. 

## ~t~lIlcii':'ta~.ttd~?~·~.;-/_



# ,*"~"Diu:ntt:t.r4 Doeing B.C. Linder 2I5J2iHO Al"A Joe White 21512010

UNCONTROLlED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED Check IIle Master list Co vflI'Iy Th;oIThis is e.e Can'ed RevisIon Before Use
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                 Powerlinx, Inc.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Powerlinx,  Inc. he Company) on Form
10-Q for the  period  ended  March 31,  2005 as filed  with the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),  I, Mark J. Meagher,  Chief
Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.1350,  as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (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.


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Powerlinx,  Inc..  and will be  retained by  Powerlinx,  Inc.  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


 /s/ Mark J. Meagher
---------------------
Mark J. Meagher
Chief Executive Officer
May 16, 2005
### PART II—CORPORATE LIQUIDATIONS

Subpart
A.
Effects on recipients.
B.
Effects on corporation.
[C.
Repealed.]
D.
Definition and special rule.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2003**—Pub. L. 108–27, title III, §302(e)(4)(B)(iii), May 28, 2003, 117 Stat. 764, struck out item for subpart C "Collapsible corporations".

**1982**—Pub. L. 97–248, title II, §222(e)(8)(B), Sept. 3, 1982, 96 Stat. 481, inserted "and special rule" in item for subpart D.

**1976**—Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1901(b)(12)(B), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1795, struck out in table of subparts for part II of subchapter C of chapter 1 in subpart (C) "; foreign personal holding companies" after "corporations".
S. 4785 

One Hundred Seventeenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty two 

An Act 

To extend by 19 days the authorization for the special assessment for the Domestic 

Trafficking Victims’ Fund. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR DOMESTIC TRAFFICKING VICTIMS’ FUND. 

Section 3014(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended, 

in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘September 

11’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
§ 4.1608 Oral presentations. ( a ) Upon request of the appellant, an opportunity for an oral presentation to the appeals official shall be granted. The purpose of an oral presentation shall be to permit the appellant to discuss or explain factual evidence supporting his allegations, and/or to obtain oral explanations of pertinent evidence. The time and place of each oral presentation shall be determined by the appeals official, after consultation with the appropriate parties.
( b ) The appellant may, but is not required to, be represented by legal counsel at an oral presentation.
( c ) The Department Counsel and the bureau/office involved shall be invited to attend any oral presentation. The appeals official may require the attendance and participation of an official or employee of the Department, whether or not requested by the appellant, if, in the appeals official's judgment, such official or employee may possess knowledge or information pertinent to the agency decision being appealed, and if this knowledge or information is unobtainable elsewhere.
( d ) An oral presentation shall not constitute a judicial proceeding, and no such judicial proceeding or hearing shall be provided for in this appeals process. There shall be no requirement for legal briefs, sworn statements, interrogation under oath, official transcripts of testimony, etc., unless the appeals official determines such are necessary for effective disposition of the appeal.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

Miami Division 

Case Number: 20-60892-CIV-MORENO 

RAY MOBLEY, JR., 

Plaintff, 

VS. 

PARA'KITO USA CORPORATION d/b/a 

PARA'KITO, 

Defendant. 

I -----------------

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO ALTER 

JUDGMENT 

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Motion to Alter Judgment (D.E. 13), filed on 

August 18, 2020. 

THE COURT has considered the motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being 

otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is 

ADJUDGED that the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs 

motion for the Court to reconsider counsel's fee is DENIED, but its motion to have the Defendant 

directly pay the $3,400 in dispute is GRANTED. Plaintiffs counsel shall inform the Court when 

such payment is made to Plaintiff. 

0 /;-

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this JI of March 2021. 

FE~ 

,,--lJNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Copies furnished to: 

Case 0:20-cv-60892-FAM Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/30/2021 Page 1 of 1
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 50007 Summary Calendar

Consolidated with 18

- 50008 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. MIGUEL ANTONIO URQUIA

- MELENDEZ, Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:10

- CR

- 290

- 1 USDC No. 2:16

- CR

- 1604

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Miguel Antonio Urquia

- Melendez appeals his guilty

- plea conviction for illegal reentry following a prior deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and his resulting 48

- month sentence. He also appeals the concomitant revocation of his supervised release related to a prior c onviction for illegal reentry.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 3, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-50007 Document: 00514666759 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/03/2018No. 18

- 50007 c/w No. 18

- 50008

2 Raising one issue, Urquia

- Melendez argues that because his indictment did not specify the prior felony conviction that formed the basis of his sentencing enhancement, his sentence, imposed under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1), exceed ed the two

- year maximum sentence under § 1326(a) and therefore violated his due process rights. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance and, alternatively, seeks an extension of time to file its brief. As the Government argues , and Urquia

- Melendez concedes, the sole issue raised on appeal is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998). See United States v. Wallace , 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5 th Cir. 2014); United States v. Pineda

- Arrellano , 492 F.3d 624, 625

- 26 (5 th Cir. 2007). Because the issue is foreclosed, summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5 th Cir. 1969). Urquia

- Melendez’s appeal from the revocation of his supervised release was consolidated w ith the instant appeal. He has not, however, raised any argument with respect to these proceedings. Any such claim is thus deemed abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224

- 25 (5 th Cir. 1993). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is G RANTED, and the district court’s judgments are AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file its brief is DENIED. Case: 18-50007 Document: 00514666759 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/03/2018
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Albert S. Winkleman, True Name Albert Winkelman, Appellant.

The indictment charged appellant and a codefendant with the crimes of forgery in the first degree and grand larceny in the first degree in that, on the sale of a gas station, they represented that a certain lease was genuine, whereas in fact it was a forgery, to their knowledge. Both defendants were convicted as charged, and defendant Albert S. Winkleman appeals. It is admitted that the codefendant, who does not appeal, actually committed the forgery. Judgment reversed on the law, the defendant discharged, and the indictment dismissed on the ground that the *780proof is insufficient to show that at the time of the transaction in question appellant had knowledge that the lease was a forgery. Hagarty, Acting P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ., concur.