alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 12.1**CERTIFICATION**I, Jean-Bernard Lévy, Chairman of the Management Board and Chief Executive Officer of Vivendi S.A.,certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Vivendi S.A. (the “Registrant”);2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe Registrant and have:(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(c) disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theRegistrant’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 control over financial reporting.                                              /s/ Jean-Bernard Lévy   Jean-Bernard Lévy   Chairman of the Management Board and Chief Executive Officer
No. 49948.

#### Protest 111371-K of F. Lester Kittle, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keeee, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel sole crepe rubber similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *F. Lester Kittle*(31 C. C. P. A. 233, C. A. D. 276) was held entitled to free entry as claimed.
**EXHIBIT 23.2****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in registration statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-107295and 333-107296) and Form S-8 (No. 333-60124, 333-60328, 333-74754, 333-74790, 333-86608, 333-86610,333-86612, 333-98273, 333-101471, 333-101473, 333-106097 and 333-106098) of Reliant Energy, Inc. ofour:Report dated March 14, 2006 related to the consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’equity and comprehensive loss, and cash flows of Reliant Energy, Inc. and subsidiaries before theeffects of the adjustments to retrospectively account for the change in subsidiary guarantors asdescribed in note 16 and financial statement schedule appearing in this Annual Report on theForm 10-K of Reliant Energy, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007.Report dated March 14, 2006 related to the consolidated statements of operations, member’s equityand comprehensive income, and cash flows of Reliant Energy Mid-Atlantic Power Holdings, LLCappearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Reliant Energy, Inc. for the year endedDecember 31, 2007.Report dated March 14, 2006 related to the consolidated statements of operations, stockholder’sequity and comprehensive loss, and cash flows of Orion Power Holdings, Inc. appearing in thisAnnual Report on Form 10-K of Reliant Energy, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007.Report dated March 14, 2006 related to the consolidated statements of operations, member’s equityand comprehensive income, and cash flows of Reliant Energy Retail Holdings, LLC appearing in thisAnnual Report on Form 10-K of Reliant Energy, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007.DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLPHouston, Texas
Case No. 13,087.

#### SMITH v. PARKER.

[3 Cranch, C. C. 654.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec., 1829.

Slavery — Note to Former Master by Emancipated Slave.

A promissory note of an emancipated slave given to his master, after emancipation and in consideration of his emancipation, is valid.

Appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace, for $50, upon a note given by the appellant [negro William Smith] to the appellee [Daniel Parker] in consideration of his emancipation by the latter. The note was given immediately upon the execution and delivery of the deed of emancipation, and bears’ date the same day.

Mr. Worthington, for appellant,

contended that the note was nudum pactum. The consideration was entirely past when the note was given. The slave, while a slave, was incompetent to contract, and after emancipation there was no consideration for the note. The case of Contee v. Gamer [Case No. 3,139], in this court at December term, 1818, was debt upon a bond given by a slave to his master for the price of his emancipation. The suit was brought after he was emancipated. The defendant pleaded a special non est factum, namely, that when he signed, sealed, and delivered the instrument, he was a slave; and so it was not his deed. Issue being joined upon that plea, and the court being of opinion that a slave could not bind himseif at law to pay money to his master, even for his freedom, the plaintiff became non pros.

Z. C. Lee, contra,

cited 1 Bl. Comm. 127, 425; Williams v. Brown, 3 Bos. & P. 72, in which Heath, J., said, “In all countries where slavery is tolerated, agreements between the master and the slave respecting the manumission of the latter, are enforced by the law. Suppose the slave, after having obtained his manumission, should refuse to perform his part of the contract, there is no country where such conduct would be endured. He is competent to enter into a contract for the purpose of his manumission, and therefore such contract may be put in force against him.” And Chambre, .7., said, “But I do not know that a slave is precluded from entering into a contract. He may do so. provided his contract do not affect the rights of his master. Though he cannot deprive his master of his services, yet with the consent of his master, he may engage to do service for another.”

Mr. Worthington, in reply,

cited Com. v. Clements, 6 Bin. 211, Pow. Cont. 34S, and Wennall v. Adney, 3 Bos. & P. 249, note.

THE COURT

affirmed the judgment, with costs,

CRANCH, Chief Judge,

doubting.
No. 53440.

protest 147337-K (New York).

#### Bellows & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
# C_2017213EN.01001202.xml

| 3.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by A Oy

(Case C-33/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 148(d) - Exemption - Supply of services to meet the direct needs of vessels used for navigation on the high seas - Loading and unloading of cargo by a subcontractor on behalf of an intermediary))

(2017/C 213/13)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

A Oy

Intervening party: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

Intervening party:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 148(d) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that loading and unloading of cargo are services supplied for the direct needs of the cargo of the vessels referred to in Article 148(a) thereof. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 148(d) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that loading and unloading of cargo are services supplied for the direct needs of the cargo of the vessels referred to in Article 148(a) thereof.

| 2. | Article 148(d) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that, first, not only supplies of services concerning loading or unloading cargo onto or from a vessel covered by Article 148(a) of that directive which take place at the end of the commercial chain of such a service may be exempt, but also supplies of services made at an earlier stage, such as services supplied by a subcontractor to an economic operator which then re-invoices them to a freight forwarder or transporter and, second, services for loading and unloading of cargo supplied to the holders of that cargo, such as the exporter or importer may also be exempt. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 148(d) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that, first, not only supplies of services concerning loading or unloading cargo onto or from a vessel covered by Article 148(a) of that directive which take place at the end of the commercial chain of such a service may be exempt, but also supplies of services made at an earlier stage, such as services supplied by a subcontractor to an economic operator which then re-invoices them to a freight forwarder or transporter and, second, services for loading and unloading of cargo supplied to the holders of that cargo, such as the exporter or importer may also be exempt.

---

(1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.

1

---
Order entered October 27 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 14 - 01388 - CV PREMIER POOLS MANAGE MENT CORP. , ET AL., A ppellant s V. PREMIER POOLS, INC., Appellee On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 12 - 07182



### O RDER We GRANT appellee’s October 19, 2015 fourth motion for an extension of time to file a brief. We ORDER the brief tendered to this Court by appellee on October 26, 2015 filed as of the date of this or der.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

____________________________________

WAYNE COOMBS, :

Petitioner, : CIVIL ACTION

v. :

: NO. 04-1841

DAVID DIGUGLIELMO, et al., :

Respondents. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 14th day of December 2012, after careful and independent review of the 

Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 46), Petitioner’s Objections thereto (Doc. No. 49), 

Respondent’s response (Doc. No. 50), the Transcript of the April 26, 2011 Hearing, and the 

entire record in this case, and for the reasons stated in the Opinion filed this day, it is hereby

ORDERED as follows:

1. Petitioner Wayne Coombs’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation are 

SUSTAINED.

2. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED in part but 

the Court declines to adopt the recommendation that the Petition be denied.

3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is 

GRANTED.

4. Petitioner’s conviction and sentence are VACATED and SET ASIDE.

5. Petitioner is to be released from custody UNLESS within 180 days from the date 

of this Order the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania affords Petitioner a new trial.

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

It is so ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Cynthia M. Rufe

_____________________

CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J.
##### 



CHANGE IN CONTROL
SEVERANCE AGREEMENT
 This Change in Control Severance Agreement Agreement Effective Date Stephen K. Burley Executive SGX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Company
 Recitals
 A. Board
 B. T
 C. Employment
Agreement
 D.
 Agreement
  1.




---



##### 



1. Term of Agreement.
 2. Definitions of Terms.
 (a) Definition of Cause. Cause
 (i)
 (ii)
 (iii)
 (iv)
 (v)
 (vi)
 (vii)
 (b) Definition of Change in Control. Change in
Control
 (i) Exchange Act
 2.




---



##### 



(ii)
 (iii)
 (iv) Incumbent Board provided,
however,
 (c) Definition of Good Reason. Good Reason
 (i)
 (ii)
 (iii)
 3.




---



##### 



(iv)
 e.g
 3. Acceleration of Vesting Upon a Change in Control.
 4. Compensation Upon Termination.
 (a) Compensation Upon Termination For Any Reason.
 (b) Effective Release Release Exhibit A
 (c) Benefits Upon Termination By the Company Without Cause.
 4.




---



##### 



(i) Severance Period
 (ii)
 (d) Benefits Upon Termination in Connection With a Change in Control.
 (i) Severance.
 (1) Termination without Cause upon or following a Change in Control; Resignation for Good
Reason prior to or following a Change in Control.
 5.




---



##### 



(2) Termination Without Cause Prior to a Change in Control. e.g.
 (ii) Acceleration of Vesting of Equity Awards. provided, however, that th provided, however
 (iii) Bonus.
 6.




---



##### 



(iv) Benefits. COBRA
 (v) Indemnification.
 5. Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code and Specified Employees. Revised Payment Schedule e.g. provided, however
 6. Parachute Payments.
 (a) Payment Excise 7.
       Tax Reduced Amount provided, however
 (b)
 (c)
 7. Successors.
 (a) Companys Successors. Company 8.
        (b) Executives Successors.
 8. Miscellaneous Provisions.
 (a) Notice.
 (b) Waiver; Modification.
 (c) Interpretation; Construction.
 (d) Integration. Exhibit A
 9.




---



##### 



(e) Withholding Taxes.
 (f) Choice of Law.
 (g) Severability.
 (h) At-Will Employment.
  10.




---



##### 



In Witness Whereof,
 /s/ Stephen K. BurleyStephen K. BurleySGX Pharmaceuticals, Inc.By
    
    /s/ Jean-Francois FormelaTitle
    
    Director
 1.




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
 RELEASE AND WAIVER OF CLAIMS
 [To be signed and delivered following termination]
 [DATE] Agreement [NAME] SGX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Company Release and Waiver
 ADEA
 A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not
know or suspect to exist in [his/her] favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by
him must have materially affected [his/her] settlement with the debtor.




---



##### 



.
 Date:[Executive]
Before the Second Division,

May 15, 1957

No. 60745.

#### Lucas Electrical Services, Inc., and Lep Transport, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 264392-K, etc. (New York).

*499Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of ammeters similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Lucas Electrical Services, Inc.,*and *Frank J. Eberle Co.*v. *United States*(36 Cust. Ct. 209, C. D. 1776), the claim at 12)2 percent under the provision in paragraph 369 (c), as modified, *supra,*for parts of automobiles was sustained. The items marked “B,” stipulated to consist of ammeters the same as those involved in C. D. 1776, except that the ammeters in the cited case were parts of automobiles whereas those in question are parts of motorcycles, were held dutiable at 15 percent under the provision in paragraph 369 (c), as modified, *supra,*for parts of motorcycles, as claimed.
Order filed, February 18, 2015

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 14

- 01020

- CV

____________ MARIANO DIAZ, INDIVI DUALLY AND A/N/F OF MARIANO DIAZ II, A MINOR CHILD , Appellant

V.
KEVIN JOHNSON, JOHN EDWARD JOHNSON, JOHN NIE M. WILLIAMS, AND JOE OR AN WILLIAMS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 405TH District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 13

- CV

- 0009



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due February 17, 2015

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Cylena Korkmas , the substitute court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

. PER CURIAM
October 9, 1957

No. 61259.

Suit 4884.

#### F. W. Myers & Co., Inc. *v.*United States.

Abstract 59756 affirmed June 10, 1957. C. A. D. 660.
No. 68640.

protests 60/12989, etc. (New York).

#### Alexander Apfelbaum Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of chord organs and parts thereof similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Excelsior Accordions, Inc.*v. *United States*(48 Cust. Ct. 148, C.D. 2328), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

In the Matter of Matthew Jeffrey Lester, Respondent. 

Appellate Case No. 2016-000535 

Opinion No. 27661 

Submitted August 9, 2016 – Filed August 24, 2016 

DISBARRED 

Lesley M. Coggiola, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sabrina 

C. Todd, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, both of 

Columbia, for Office of Disciplinary Counsel. 

Matthew Jeffrey Lester, Pro Se. 

PER CURIAM: By order of the Superior Court of Wake County, North Carolina 

dated October 3, 2013, respondent was disbarred from the practice of law in North 

Carolina.1

 The order was forwarded to this Court by the Office of Disciplinary 

Counsel (ODC) on March 11, 2016. Thereafter, pursuant to Rule 29(b) of the 

Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, Rule 413, SCACR, ODC and 

respondent were notified by letter of the Clerk of this Court that they had thirty 

days to inform the Court of any claim that imposition of the identical discipline in 

1

 The order is a Consent Order of Disbarment that states respondent resigned from the North 

Carolina State Bar in light of a pending investigation into misappropriation of client funds. The 

order further states respondent acknowledged the material facts upon which the investigation was 

predicated were true and that he could not successfully defend against disciplinary charges if 

brought. The order concluded that by misappropriating client funds, respondent violated Rule 

8.4 of the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct and the conduct constituted grounds for 

discipline. Finally, the order concluded respondent had engaged in professional misconduct 

warranting disbarment. Accordingly, respondent was disbarred from the practice of law in North 

Carolina. 
 

South Carolina is not warranted and the reasons for any such claim.2 ODC 

submitted a letter stating it has no information that would indicate imposition of 

identical discipline against respondent in South Carolina is not warranted. 

Respondent did not respond to the Clerk's letter. 

We find disbarment is the appropriate sanction to impose as reciprocal discipline, 

as none of the reasons set forth in Rule 29(d) of the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary 

Enforcement for the imposition of different discipline exists in this matter. 

DISBARRED. 

PLEICONES, C.J., BEATTY, KITTREDGE, HEARN and FEW, JJ., concur. 

2

 This letter was mailed to the two most recent addresses respondent provided in the Attorney 

Information System (AIS), both in North Carolina. ODC also attempted to contact respondent 

using the email address he provided in AIS but received no response.
# Map            Al ʻAqabah, Jordan : a commercial and geographic overview.
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. 09-10321

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROGER WOODROW GORE, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:08-CR-41-1

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Roger Woodrow Gore,

Jr., has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Gore has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 12, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         I, Scott D. Dorfman, Chief Executive Officer of Innotrac Corporation
(the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350 as adopted by ss.906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)      the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the quarter ended
         March 31, 2003 (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 result of operations of
         the Company.

Dated: May 14, 2003
                                   /s/ Scott D. Dorfman
                                   ---------------------
                                   Scott D. Dorfman
                                   President, Chief Executive Officer and
                                   Chairman of the Board



A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO INNOTRAC CORPORATION AND WILL BE RETAINED BY INNOTRAC CORPORATION
AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.