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



Exhibit 99.1

May 28, 2002

Securities and Exchange Commission

450 Fifth Street, NW


Washington, DC 20549-0408


Ladies and Gentlemen:

Vivendi Universal has obtained a representation
letter from Barbier Frinault & Cie, a member firm of
Andersen Worldwide, stating that their audit of Vivendi
Universal for the year ended December 31, 2001 was subject
to their quality control system for the U.S. accounting and
auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the
engagement was conducted in compliance with professional
standards, that there was appropriate continuity of Barbier
Frinault & Cie personnel working on the audit,
availability of U.S. national office consultation and
availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of Barbier
Frinault & Cie to conduct the relevant portions of the
audit.



| |                          
| | -------------------------
| | Very truly yours,        
|
| | Vivendi Universal, S.A.  
|
| | By: /s/ GUILLAUME HANNEZO
| |                          
| | Name: Guillaume Hannezo  

| |        |                                    
| | ------ | -----------------------------------
| | Title: | Senior Executive Vice President and

| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | Chief Financial Officer
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 tsesPQsfc 3ESS 

# STAfJtS^^iSABIRSBSCi PENALTYFOR : *" c 10/30/201PRIVATE USE WILKINS, BILLY CHARLES TrJ-CeNd? OCT31 2014 I MAILEDFROMZPftft^gjggjj^g I have this day received and presented to the Court the original application for writ of habeas corpus. -->.-' " Abel Acosta, Clerk BILLY CHARLES WILKINS 

### PLEASE FORWARD mTC . WESTTEXAS ISF -TDC#757085 

## RESIDENT NO LONGER BQX 1359 . . ' :. AT THIS FACILITY BROWNFIELD, TX 79316 **F I

•JAL-JBS3B 793 i S 

## lillHMiilli''ni'liiil^iilii,lilll'llilili'lillllli'l,i'lll
[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(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****School programs commodityupdate [electronic resource]**
 
2002 MarSepDec | 2003: MarSepOct | 2004: JanMarDec | 2005: AprAugDec| 2006: Apr | 2007: AprJulSep | 2008: FebMay
 
SuDoc Number:A 98.19:
Item Number:0074-A-07 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000570063
 
February 13, 2020
----

| (1) | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of §13(a) or 15(d) of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §78m or 78o(d),      and, |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:  March      31, 2008 | /s/ Robert DeMeulemeester    |   |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------------|--------|
|                                  | Robert      DeMeulemeester   |
|                                  | Chief      Financial Officer |

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

THOMAS CASILLAS : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. : NO. 04-2642

:

JAMES L. GRACE, ET AL. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 11th day of January, 2006, upon consideration of the Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus (Document No. 1), the Respondents’ supplemental response to

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the petitioner’s Traverse, the Report and

Recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter and

Petitioner’s Objections to Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation, and after a thorough

and independent review of the record, it is ORDERED that:

1) The Report and Recommendationof Magistrate Judge Rueteris APPROVED

and ADOPTED;

2) The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED; and,

3) There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability.

 /s/ 

TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE, J.

Case 2:04-cv-02642-TJS Document 22 Filed 01/11/06 Page 1 of 1
# C_2018022EN.01000902.xml

| 22.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 November 2017 — Ludwig-Bölkow-Systemtechnik GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-250/16 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Arbitration clause - Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) - Partial repayment of the sums paid to the appellant - Liquidated damages))

(2018/C 022/11)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Ludwig-Bölkow-Systemtechnik GmbH (represented by: M. Núñez Müller, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Ludwig-Bölkow-Systemtechnik GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ludwig-Bölkow-Systemtechnik GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.

1

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 2, 2017

No. 04-17-00648-CV

Rudolph RESENDEZ,

Appellant

v.

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Appellee

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15-10-00236-CVK

Honorable H. Paul Canales, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Extension of time to file the Clerk’s Record is this date NOTED. Time is extended to 

November 15, 2017.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ____________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE

Clerk of Court

Denise Rodriguez

District Clerk - Karnes County

210 West Calvert, Suite 180

Karnes City, TX 78118
Case 2:04-cv-03509-EL Document 141-3 Filed 04/29/05 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:04-cv-03509-EL Document 141-3 Filed 04/29/05 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:04-cv-03509-EL Document 141-3 Filed 04/29/05 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:04-cv-03509-EL Document 141-3 Filed 04/29/05 Page 4 of 4
No. 60404.

protest 270851-K (New York).

#### Intercontinental Kid Corporation *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

An examination of the official papers disclosing that the protest was untimely, same was dismissed.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MARCH 28, 2013

NO. 03-13-00116-CR

Roland Sosa, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON AND ROSE

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION --

OPINION BY JUSTICE ROSE

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being 

considered, it is the opinion of this Court that the appeal should be dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the appeal be dismissed in accordance with 

the opinion of this Court; and it appearing that the appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, 

that no adjudication as to costs be made; and that this decision be certified below for observance.
# Official Journal L 53/2013

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2013.053.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 53 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5626 February 2013 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2013.053.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 53

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5626 February 2013

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 169/2013 of 25 February 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 169/2013 of 25 February 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
# C_2017202EN.01001401.xml

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/14

---

Order of the President of the Court of 23 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Viseu — Portugal) — João Ventura Ramos v Fundo de Garantia Salarial

(Case C-627/16) (1)

1

(2017/C 202/24)

Language of the case: Portuguese

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 70, 6.3.2017.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

HASAN IB ABDULLAH-TALIB, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 758 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 16th day of March, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL NO. 03-487

:

v. :

:

ANDRE KEYES :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 28th day of January, 2014, upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion for 

Modification of Sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (Docket No. 690), and the 

Government’s response thereto, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum, IT 

IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ John R. Padova, J.

 

John R. Padova, J.

Case 2:03-cr-00487-JP Document 694 Filed 01/28/14 Page 1 of 1
No. 65410.

#### Daniel F. Young, Inc., and Robinson Clay Products Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 138773-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Rockingham earthenware similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Justin Tharaud & Son, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(44 Cust. Ct. 216, C.D. 2177), the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (a) As to all items entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption prior to January 1, 1948, at 12% percent ad valorem under paragraph 210, as modified by the trade agreement with the United Kingdom (T.D. 49753), and (b) as to all items entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on and after January 1, 1948, and prior to September 10, 1955, at 20 cents per dozen articles, but not less than 7% percent nor more than 25 percent ad valorem, under paragraph 210, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 51802).
# Product Specifications To rnado H920 Aircraft

 Flight Time 24 min  Dimension 38.1x33.4x18.1in (969x849x461mm)  Diagonal Length Without Rotor Blades 36.2 in(920mm)  Propeller/Main Rotor Diameter 17.3 in (440mm)  Weight with GB603, GH4 Camera and Battery 176.0 oz (4990g)  Battery LiPo 6s  Charger 6S 22.2V LiPo DC Balancing Smart Charger with AC Adapter (included)  Transmitter 24 - channel 2.4GHz with 5.8GHz video downlink (included)  Flight Modes Smart,Angle, and Home Modes  Maximum Flying Height ( Absolute altitude ) 4000m (13124 ft)  Maximum Flying Height ( Relative altitude ) 400ft (122m)  Maximum Rotation Rate 100°/s  Maximum Roll Angle 35°  Maximum Horizontal Speed 11m/s 25MPH 40KPH  Radio Control Frequency Band 2.4GHz  Operating Temperature Range - 10 °C to 50 °C 

## ST24

 Operating System AndroidTM  Number of Channels 24  Control Transmission Distance/Range (Optimum Conditions) 2km  Robust Radio Control Modulation Yuneec Protocol  Video link Frequency Band 5.8GHz  Video Transmission Distance/Range (Optimum Conditions) FC C Compliance: Up to 2296.57ft (700m) CE Compliance: Up to 300m (984.252 ft) Flight Systems Telemetry Data On Screen Display (OSD) Yes  LED Backlit LCD Screen 7”  Tactile (Vibrating) and Audible Feedback Y es  Built- In LiPo Battery Voltage / Capacity 8700mah Li - ion 1s  Charger Smart Balance Charge 

## GB603

 Weight Without camera: 31.4 oz(890g)/With camera: 56.5 oz (1600g)  Dimension 6.5x8.6x7.7in (165x219x196mm)  Control Angle Accuracy ±0.02°  Maxumum Control Range Pitch : between - 30 ° to 90 ° Yaw : between 0 ° and 360 °  Mechanical Range Pitch : - 120 ° ~75 ° Roll : between -40 ° and 40 ° Yaw : between 0 ° and 360 °  Maximum Control Speed Pitch : 30 °/s Yaw: 30 °/s 

## V18

 Dimension 6.9x4.9x8.1in (175x125x205mm)  Weight 26.5oz (750g)  Focusing System 18x Optical Zoom  Field Of View 54.8° (for wide - angle ) ~3.4° (for distal end)  Video Transmission Range Pitch: 1968.5ft ( 600m)  Video Resolution FULL HD 1080p 30FPS  Photo Resolution 2 Megapixels  Storage(memory) Micro SD Class 10, 4~32GB  Control Angle Accuracy ±0.02°  White Balance Automatic White Balance  Transmission System 5.8GHz  Input/Operating Voltage 13V to 24V  Working Temperature 0 °C to 40 °C Storage Temperature 0 °C to 40 °C  Angular Vibration Range ±0 .02°  Adjustable Incline Pitch : +30 ° ~ - 120°; Yaw : +/- 0 ° ~ 360 ° ; Roll: -45 ° ~ +45 °  Maximum Control Speed Pitch : 30 °/s Yaw: 35 °/s
EX-10.21





 Exhibit 10.21 

Spousal Consent 
 The
undersigned, Xiaolei WU, a People’s Republic of China (“China” or the “PRC”) citizen with PRC Identification Card No.: 410103198311161926, is the lawful spouse of Peihong CHEN, a PRC citizen with PRC Identification Card No.:
450502198203040310. I hereby unconditionally and irrevocably agree to the execution of the following documents (hereinafter referred to as the “Transaction Documents”) by Peihong CHEN on December 23, 2014, and the
disposal of the equity interests of Hangzhou Tuya Technology Co., Ltd. (“Hangzhou Tuya”) held by Peihong CHEN and registered in his/her name according to the following documents: 

 

	 	(1)	 The Equity Interest Pledge Agreement entered into with Hangzhou Aixiangji Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter
referred to as the “WFOE”) and Hangzhou Tuya; 


  

	 	(2)	 The Exclusive Option Agreement entered into with the WFOE and Hangzhou Tuya; and 



 

	 	(3)	 The Power of Attorney executed by Peihong CHEN. 



I hereby undertake not to make any assertions in connection with the equity interests of Hangzhou Tuya which are held by Peihong CHEN. I
hereby further confirm that Peihong CHEN can perform the Transaction Documents and further amend or terminate the Transaction Documents without the authorization or consent from me. 

I hereby undertake to execute all necessary documents and take all necessary actions to ensure appropriate performance of the Transaction
Documents (as may be amended from time to time). 












 I hereby agree and undertake that if I obtain any equity interests of Hangzhou Tuya which
are held by Peihong CHEN for any reasons, I shall be bound by the Transaction Documents and the Exclusive Business Cooperation Agreement entered into between the WFOE and Hangzhou Tuya as of December 23, 2014 (the “Exclusive
Business Cooperation Agreement”) (as may be amended from time to time) and comply with the obligations thereunder as a shareholder of Hangzhou Tuya. For this purpose, upon the WFOE’s request, I shall sign a series of written documents
in substantially the same format and content as the Transaction Documents and the Exclusive Business Cooperation Agreement (as may be amended from time to time). 












 Hereby Confirm. 

 

			
		 	/s/ Xiaolei WU
	Name:	 	Xiaolei WU
	Date:	 	 December 23, 2014
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October

18 , 2018.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 16 -00901- CV

TEACHER RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF TEXAS, Appellant
V. MARGUERITE TAMASY, Appellee
On Appeal from the 127th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2015-71050

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N This is an appeal from a judgment signed October 18, 2016. On October 8, 2018, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is granted. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Donovan and Wise.
# C_2015245EN.01003001.xml

| 27.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/30

---

Action brought on 8 April 2015 — Kohrener Landmolkerei and DHG v Commission

(Case T-178/15)

(2015/C 245/36)

Language of the case: Germany

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Kohrener Landmolkerei GmbH (Penig, Germany) and DHG Deutsche Heumilchgesellschaft mbH (Frohburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Wagner, Lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the European Commission’s decision of 2 March 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Commission’s decision of 2 March 2015;

| — | allow the claimants’ opposition of 23 December 2014 in proceedings AT-TSG-0007-01035. |
| --- | --- |

—

allow the claimants’ opposition of 23 December 2014 in proceedings AT-TSG-0007-01035.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants claim that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law and should therefore be annulled. Under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 (1), the applicants, as persons lodging a notice of opposition, had a three-month period in which they were required to lodge a notice of opposition with the national authorities if they wished to lodge an opposition to an application for a traditional speciality guaranteed. They state that the publication at issue (OJ 2014 C 340, p. 6) was effected on 30 September 2014 and that on 23 December 2014 the opposition was lodged with the national authorities. The applicants allege that they are not responsible for any subsequent inobservance of a time-limit. They add that they alone cannot influence the timeous action of the competent authority with regard to the forwarding of oppositions to the Commission and that the contested decision did not have regard to the fact that the notice of opposition was lodged in time. That decision had regard only to the date at which the notice was received by the European Commission.

1

In addition, it is claimed that Article 51 of Regulation No 1151/2012 does not lay down a time-limit for the forwarding of the notice of opposition through a national authority. It is therefore only the applicants’ submission of the notice of opposition to the national authorities which is relevant.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1).

1

---
# C_2017168EN.01001901.xml

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/19

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Versailles — France) — Enedis, SA v Axa Corporate Solutions SA, Ombrière Le Bosc SAS

(Case C-515/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Articles 107 and 108 TFEU - State aid - Concept of ‘intervention by the State or through State resources’ - Solar power - Obligation to purchase at a price higher than the market price - Compensation in full - No prior notification))

(2017/C 168/24)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Versailles

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Enedis, SA

Applicant:

Defendants: Axa Corporate Solutions SA, Ombrière Le Bosc SAS

Defendants:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1) | Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that an obligation, such as that introduced by the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, to purchase electricity generated by plants which use solar radiation energy at a price higher than the market price and that is financed by all final consumers of electricity must be regarded as intervention by the State or through State resources. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that an obligation, such as that introduced by the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, to purchase electricity generated by plants which use solar radiation energy at a price higher than the market price and that is financed by all final consumers of electricity must be regarded as intervention by the State or through State resources.

| 2) | Article 108(3) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that where a national measure constituting State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU has not been notified to the European Commission in advance, it is for the national courts to draw all the inferences of that unlawfulness, in particular as regards the validity of the measures implementing that measure. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Article 108(3) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that where a national measure constituting State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU has not been notified to the European Commission in advance, it is for the national courts to draw all the inferences of that unlawfulness, in particular as regards the validity of the measures implementing that measure.

---

(1)  OJ C 475, 19.12.2016.

1

---