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

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Jean-Pierre Clamadieu, certify that:

 

1.                                       Ihave reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Rhodia;

 

2.                                       Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.                                       Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for,the periods presented in this report;

 

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

 

(a)                                  Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)                                 Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)                                  Disclosedin this report any change in the company’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, thecompany’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.                                       Thecompany’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to thecompany’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a)                                  Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b)                                 Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the company’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Date: June 4, 2004

 

 
|   | /s/  Jean-Pierre  Clamadieu       |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   | *Jean-Pierre  Clamadieu*               |
|   | *Chairman and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

1

----
#### James J. Collins, as Public Administrator of Queens County and as Administrator of the Estate of Shiv Koumar, Also Known as Shiv Kumar, Deceased, Respondent, v New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[697 NYS2d 341]

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice and wrongful death, the defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated October 14, 1998, which granted the plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

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

In order to successfully move to restore to the trial calendar an action which has been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404, a plaintiff must establish (1) a meritorious cause of action, (2) a reasonable excuse for the delay in prosecuting the action, (3) a lack of intent to abandon the action, and (4) a lack of prejudice to the defendants *(see, Jeffs v Janessa, Inc.,*226 AD2d 504; *Civello v Grossman,*192 AD2d 636). The moving party must satisfy all four components of the test before the dismissal can be vacated *(see, Fico v Health Ins. Plan,*248 AD2d 432).

The plaintiffs allegation that his counsel’s paralegal failed to move to restore the matter to the calendar when told to do so does not constitute a reasonable excuse for the approximately one year and eight-month delay in moving to restore *(see, Kourtsounis v Chakrabarty,*254 AD2d 394; *Iorio v Galeon,*230 AD2d 771; *Diamond v J.B.J. Mgt. Co.,*220 AD2d 378; *Robinson v New York City Tr. Auth.,*203 AD2d 351). Furthermore, in light of the plaintiff’s inactivity regarding the case during that time, the plaintiff also failed to rebut the presumption of abandonment that attaches when a matter has been automatically dismissed *(see, Jeffs v Janessa, Inc.,*226 AD2d 504, supra; *Michael I. Weintraub, P. C. v Computer Rad,*209 AD2d 405; *Bohlman v Lorenzen,*208 AD2d 582).

*179Moreover, since 11 years have passed between the time of the alleged malpractice and the time that the plaintiff moved to restore the action to the trial calendar, the defendants would be prejudiced if the action was restored to the trial calendar *(see, Fico v Health Ins. Plan,*248 AD2d 432, *supra; Swedish v Bourie,*233 AD2d 495; *Carter v City of New York,*231 AD2d 485). Mangano, P. J., Bitter, Joy, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.
§ 65.131 Records. ( a ) Each certificated parachute rigger shall keep a record of the packing, maintenance, and alteration of parachutes performed or supervised by him. He shall keep in that record, with respect to each parachute worked on, a statement of— ( 1 ) Its type and make;
( 2 ) Its serial number;
( 3 ) The name and address of its owner;
( 4 ) The kind and extent of the work performed;
( 5 ) The date when and place where the work was performed; and
( 6 ) The results of any drop tests made with it.
( b ) Each person who makes a record under paragraph (a) of this section shall keep it for at least 2 years after the date it is made.
( c ) Each certificated parachute rigger who packs a parachute shall write, on the parachute packing record attached to the parachute, the date and place of the packing and a notation of any defects he finds on inspection. He shall sign that record with his name and the number of his certificate.
#### §§ 406.10-406.100 [Reserved]
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 the Interior

###### Office of the Secretary 

# AGENCY:

Office of the Secretary, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of public meetings of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee and Invasive Species Council. 

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given of meetings of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee and the Invasive Species Council. The purpose of the Advisory Committee is to provide advice to the Council, as authorized by Executive Order 13112, on a broad array of issues related to preventing the introduction of invasive species and providing for their control and minimizing the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause. The Council is Co-chaired by the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Secretary of Commerce. The duty of the Council is to provide national leadership regarding invasive species issues. The purpose of a meeting on May 17 is to convene the full Advisory Committee and receive reports from the six working groups established to provide input for the National Invasive Species Management Plan. A second meeting on May 18 is the first joint meeting of the Advisory Committee and the Council. The meetings will be open to the public. Attendance will be limited to space available. 

# DATES:

Meeting of Invasive Species Advisory Committee: 9 a.m., Wednesday, May 17, 2000; Meeting of Invasive Species Advisory Committee and Council: 1 p.m., Thursday, May 18, 2000. 

# ADDRESSES:

Doubletree Hotel National Airport, 300 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA 22202. Committee Meeting will be held in the Commonwealth Room, Joint Committee/Council Meeting will be held in the Washington Room. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kelsey Passé, National Invasive Species Council Program Analyst; E-mail: kelsey_passe@ios.doi.gov; Phone: (202) 208-6336; Fax: (202) 208-1526. 

Dated: May 1, 2000. 

A. Gordon Brown, 

Co-Executive Director, National Invasive Species Council. 

[FR Doc. 00-11197 Filed 5-4-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-RK-P
§ 431.77 Records. ( a ) Except as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, a licensee shall maintain for 3 years all records, data, and other material necessary to verify that a licensed RLV mission is conducted in accordance with representations contained in the licensee's application.
( b ) In the event of a launch accident, reentry accident, launch incident or reentry incident, as defined in § 401.5 of this chapter, a licensee shall preserve all records related to the event. Records must be retained until completion of any Federal investigation and the FAA advises the licensee that the records need not be retained. The licensee shall make all records required to be maintained under the regulations available to Federal officials for inspection and copying.
§ 5.23 Safety accountability and authority. ( a ) Any person required to have an SMS under this part must define in its safety policy the accountability for safety of the following individuals: ( 1 ) Accountable executive, as described in § 5.25.
( 2 ) All members of management in regard to developing, implementing, and maintaining SMS processes within their area of responsibility, including, but not limited to: ( i ) Hazard identification and safety risk assessment.
( ii ) Assuring the effectiveness of safety risk controls.
( iii ) Promoting safety as required in subpart E of this part.
( iv ) Advising the accountable executive on the performance of the SMS and on any need for improvement.
( 3 ) Employees relative to the person's safety performance.
( b ) The person must identify the levels of management with the authority to make decisions regarding safety risk acceptance.
[Doc. No. FAA-2009-0671, Amdt. 5-1, 80 FR 1326, Jan. 8, 2015, as amended by Amdt. 5-2, 89 FR 33106, Apr. 26, 2024]
#### POLLOCK v McGINTY

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9629.

Decided Feb 25, 1929

O D Eschelman, Cleveland, for Pollock.

C I Erb, Cleveland, for McGinty.

VICKERY, J.

The main error relied upon is that the court erred, in charging the jury. The request that the defendant below asked the court to give was a proper request, and had it been offered in writing and the court *217asked to give it before argument, we think it would have been erroneous for the court not to have done so, but the record shows that such was not the fact and an examination of the charge of the court will show that the court did practically cover the question in the general charge. It was surely so plain and distinct that a jury could not misunderstand what the issues were, and the jury having found for the plaintiff, we do not think this so-called error would be available to the plaintiff in error.

The plaintiff in error seems to think that because the defendant in error got a house that was patched up and the doors made to fit and replaced in a measure, that plaintiff was not damaged any. Well, the plaintiff bought a new house and she was entitled to get what she paid for, and she surely did not expect to get a house wherein the floors would sink eight or ten inches, which would open up all the joints in the house and make the windows and doors unsuitable and not fit properly, and putting that back by the use of jacks and placing, the house back, and then covering up the spots where the plaster was knocked off, does not, in our judgment, conform to the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, nor do we think that the taking of a deed afterwards was a waiver of the terms of the written contract as to how this house should be built, and we think the charge of the court fairly submitted the question to the jury and we cannot see any error in this record and for that reason the judgment will be affirmed.

Levine, J, concurs; Sullivan, J, not participating.
#### § 389.27 Refund of fee.

Any fee charged under this part may be refunded in full or in part upon request if the document for which it is charged is withdrawn before final action is taken. Such requests shall be filed in accordance with § 389.23.
Exhibit 10.37


 


CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED UNDER


C.F.R. SECTIONS 200.80(b)(4), 200.83 AND 230.406.


 


(*****) INDICATES OMITTED MATERIAL THAT IS THE


SUBJECT OF A CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUEST


FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION.


 


THE OMITTED MATERIAL HAS BEEN FILED


SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION.


 


Amendment to

Supply Agreement


 


This Amendment is entered into as of January 1,
2008, by and between Xtra Congelados S.A. de C.V., formerly known as Congelados
Don Jose, S.P.R. de R.L., a Mexican limited liability company (“Processor”) and
Birds Eye Foods, Inc., having its principal offices at 90 Linden Oaks,
Rochester, New York 14625 (“Buyer”), in order to amend the Supply Agreement,
dated as of August 23, 2005, by and between Processor and Buyer as
previously amended (“Agreement”).


 


1.             Section 2(c) of the
Agreement sets forth a procedure for Processor and Buyer to adjust the prices
for each Pack Year. In lieu of the price increases which would result under Section 2(c),
Processor and Buyer hereby agree that the prices as set forth in the attached
exhibit titled “XTRA CONGELADOS, BEFI INVOICING PRICES” shall replace the
prices previously in effect as of January 1, 2008 for the Pack Year
beginning on such date.


 


2.             For
Pack Years beginning on or after January 1, 2009, Processor and Buyer
agree that the provisions of Section 2(c) shall apply.


 


3.             Section 4
(a) Processor and Buyer agree the new set of Specifications Exhibit D


 


4.             Capitalized
terms not defined in this Amendment shall have the same meaning as set forth in
the Agreement.


 


5.            
Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, the terms, conditions, and
provisions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect as stated in the
Agreement.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been entered
into as of the date first above written.


 


	
   

  	
  XTRA CONGELADOS S.A. de
  C.V.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Guillermo Garcia Rabage

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  Guillermo Garcia Rabage

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  General Manager

  	
   

  



 

















 


	
   

  	
  BIRDS
  EYE FOODS, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Paul Digenova

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  Paul Digenova

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  V.P. Commodity Management

  	
   

  



 


2

















 


XTRA
CONGELADOS


 


BEFI
INVOICING PRICES


 


(*****)


 

















 


EXHIBIT
D


 


(*****)
§ 413.11 Acceptance of an application. The FAA will initially screen an application to determine whether it is complete enough for the FAA to start its review. After completing the initial screening, the FAA will notify the applicant in writing of one of the following: ( a ) The FAA accepts the application and will initiate review; or
( b ) The application is so incomplete or indefinite that the FAA cannot start to evaluate it. The FAA will reject it and notify the applicant, stating each reason for rejecting it and what action the applicant must take for the FAA to accept the application. The FAA may return a rejected application to the applicant or may hold it until the applicant takes the required actions.
[Doc. No. FAA-2006-24197, 72 FR 17018, Apr. 6, 2007; Doc. No. FAA-2019-0229, Amdt. 413-12, 85 FR 79711, Dec. 10, 2020]
Form of Redemption



 EXHIBIT 4.5 
 STATEMENT REGARDING RESTRICTIONS ON 
 TRANSFERABILITY OF SHARES OF COMMON STOCK

 (To Appear on Stock Certificate or to Be Sent upon Request 
 and without Charge to Stockholders Issued Shares without Certificates) 
 “The securities issued or transferred are subject to restrictions on transfer and ownership for the purpose of maintenance of the Company’s status as a real estate investment trust (a
“REIT”) under Sections 856 through 860 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). Except as otherwise provided pursuant to the Articles of Incorporation of the Company, no Person may (a) Beneficially or
Constructively Own Common Shares of the Company in excess of 9.8% (or such greater percent as may be determined by the Board of Directors of the Company) of the outstanding Common Shares; (b) Beneficially or Constructively Own shares of any
series of Preferred Shares of the Company in excess of 9.8% (or such greater percent as may be determined by the Board of Directors of the Company) of the outstanding shares of such series of Preferred Shares; or (c) Beneficially or
Constructively Own Common Shares or Preferred Shares (of any class or series) which would result in the Company being “closely held” under Section 856(h) of the Code or which otherwise would cause the Company to fail to qualify as a
REIT. Any Person who has Beneficial or Constructive Ownership, or who Acquires or attempts to Acquire Beneficial or Constructive Ownership, of Common Shares and/or Preferred Shares in excess of the above limitations must immediately notify the
Company in writing or, in the event of a proposed or attempted Transfer or Acquisition or purported change in Beneficial or Constructive Ownership, must give written notice to the Company at least 15 days prior to the proposed or attempted Transfer,
transaction or other event. Any purported Transfer of Common Shares and/or Preferred Shares which results in violation of the ownership or transfer limitations set forth in the Company’s Articles of Incorporation shall be void ab initio
and the intended transferee shall not have or acquire any rights in such Common Shares and/or Preferred Shares. If the transfer and ownership limitations referred to herein are violated, the Common Shares or Preferred Shares represented hereby will
constitute Excess Shares to the extent of violation of such limitations, and such Excess Shares will be automatically transferred to an Excess Shares Trust, all as provided by the Articles of Incorporation of the Company. All defined terms used in
this legend have the meanings identified in the Company’s Articles of Incorporation, as the same may be amended from time to time, a copy of which, including the restrictions on transfer, will be sent without charge to each Stockholder who so
requests.” 
 All capitalized terms in the above-referenced notice have the meanings defined in the Articles of
Incorporation of the Company.
#### §§ 100.531-100.539 [Reserved]
consent.htm


    Exhibit
10(a)

    


    


    


    Consent of Ernst
& Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

    


    


    We consent to the
reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm” and to the
use of our reports dated (a) March 18, 2009, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company
and (b) March 13, 2009, with respect to the financial statements of
Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N, in Post-Effective Amendment No. 9 to
the Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-138190) pertaining to
Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N, which is incorporated by reference
into Post-Effective Amendment No. 12.

    


     

    /s/ Ernst &
Young LLP

     

    Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania

    November 4,
2009
#### § 404.17 Additional rulemaking proceedings.

The FAA may initiate other rulemaking proceedings, if necessary or desirable. For example, it may invite interested people to present oral arguments, participate in conferences, appear at informal hearings, or participate in any other proceedings.

[Doc. No. FAA-2006-24197, 72 FR 17016, Apr. 6, 2007]
#### STATE ex rel. MARGARET O’MALLEY, Respondent, v. JOHN H. MUSICK et al., Appellants.

St. Louis Court of Appeals,

April 2, 1912.

The opinion of the Springfield Court of Appeals in this case (145 Mo. App. 33) is adopted as the opinion of the court.

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit *Court.*— Eon. *George E. Shields,*Judge.

Reversed.

*215
      *Frank H. Braden*for appellant, John U. Musick..

*George W. Lubke*and George *W. Lubke, Jr.,*for-appellants, Edward Christ Ette and David M. Mnsick..

*Thomas D. Gannon*and *F. G. O’Malley*for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal in this case was-prosecuted to this court,, but it was transferred to the Springfield Court of Appeals under the provisons of an act of the Legislature, approved June 12, 1909. [See Laws of Missouri, 1909, p. 396; see, also, Sec. 3939, E. S. 1909.] Afterwards, the Springfield Court of Appeals disposed of the ease through an opinion prepared by Presiding Judge Nixon of that court, which may he found reported under the title of State ex rel. v. Musick, 145 Mo. App. 33, 130 S. W. 398. Subsequently, the Supreme Court declared the-legislative act, which purported to authorize the transfer of cases from one court of appeals to another for hearing and determination, to he unconstitutional, as will appear by reference to the cases of State ex rel. Dunham v. Nixon, 232 Mo. 98, 133 S. W. 336; State ex rel. Dressed Beef, etc. Co. v. Nixon, 232 Mo. 496, 134 S. W. 538; State ex rel. O’Malley v. Nixon, 233 Mo. 345, 138 S. *W.*342. Because of such ruling of the Supreme Court, the case was thereafter transferred by the Springfield Court of Appeals to this court on the theory that the jurisdiction of the appeal continued to reside here and the proceedings had in the Springfield Court with reference thereto were *coram non judice.*

The case has been argued and submitted here and' duly considered. On examination of the several arguments advanced for a reversal of the judgment, we-are prepared to concur in the views of the Springfield'. Court heretofore expressly thereon and therefore-*216adopt as the statement of facts and the opinion of this court the opinion above referred to in the same case which, as before said, is reported under the title of State ex rel. v. Musick, 145 Mo. App. 33, 130 S. W. 398.

"We concur in the view expressed in the opinion above referred to and. for the reasons suggested therein. . The judgment should be reversed. It is so ordered.

All concur.