alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Letter of Intent



 Exhibit 10.1 
 On June 6, 2008, Encorium Group, Inc. (“Encorium”) entered into a non-binding letter of intent (“LOI”) with Prologue Research International, Inc. (“Prologue”), Pursuant to the LOI, the Company is to
acquire all of the issued and outstanding shares of Prologue. In accordance with the terms of the LOI, upon execution of the term sheet Encorium paid $500,000 to Prologue as a non-refundable exclusivity fee. On July     ,
2008 Encorium entered into an amendment to the LOI pursuant to which the parties agreed that the paid $500,000 exclusivity fee previously paid by Encorium to Prologue would be credited to Encorium upon closing of the transaction, the result of which
the total compensation for the acquisition was reduced from $13.5 million to $13.0 million.
No. 47532

#### Protest 904645-G of Frederick H. Cone Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

The appraiser described the merchandise as strands of cellulose nitrate, and the exhibit consisted of 12 strands, white in color, varying in length from approximately 10 to 12)4 inches. The record consists *410inerely of the samples and the official papers and was held wholly insufficient to-support either of the claims made by the plaintiff. The presumption of correet,ness attaching to the collector’s classification not having been overcome, the protest was overruled and the action of the collector affirmed.
No. 56100.

protests 608793-G and 867324-G (New York).

#### Boyce Lazarus Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
exv4w17









 







    EXHIBIT
    4.17



 




    BERKSHIRE
    HATHAWAY FINANCE CORPORATION



 



    OFFER TO EXCHANGE



 



    $1,000,000,000 principal amount
    of its 5.40% Senior Notes Due 2018




    unconditionally guaranteed by
    Berkshire Hathaway Inc., which have been registered




    under the Securities Act of
    1933, for any and all 5.40% Senior Notes Due 2018,




    unconditionally guaranteed by
    Berkshire Hathaway Inc.



 


 




    Instructions
    from Beneficial Owner
    



 



    The undersigned acknowledge(s) receipt of your letter and the
    enclosed Prospectus and the related Letter of Transmittal in
    connection with the offer by the Company to exchange the
    Exchange Notes for Outstanding Notes.



 



    This will instruct you to tender the principal amount of
    Outstanding Notes indicated below held by you for the account of
    the undersigned, upon the terms and subject to the conditions
    set forth in the Prospectus and the related Letter of
    Transmittal.



 



    The undersigned represents that (i) the Exchange Notes
    acquired pursuant to the Exchange Offer are being obtained in
    the ordinary course of the undersigned’s business,
    (ii) the undersigned is not engaging, does not intend to
    engage, and has no arrangement or understanding with any person
    to participate in the distribution of such Exchange Notes,
    (iii) the undersigned is not an “affiliate,” as
    defined under Rule 405 of the Securities Act, of the
    Company and (iv) the undersigned is not acting on behalf of
    any person or entity that could not truthfully make these
    statements. If the undersigned is a broker-dealer, it
    acknowledges that it will deliver a copy of the Prospectus in
    connection with any resale of the Exchange Notes.



 



    Sign Here




 



    Signatures(s)













 










    Securities which are to be tendered:



 



    Tender all of the Outstanding Notes



 



    Aggregate Principal Amount*



 


		
	    o  Outstanding Notes	
    





 






    Name(s) (Please Print)



 






    Address



 






    Zip Code



 






    Area Code and Telephone No.



 



    Dated: ­
    ­,
    2008













 





 




		
	    * 	
    Unless otherwise indicated, it will be assumed that all of the
    Outstanding Notes listed are to be tendered.





    

    2
Exhibit 13.2



Officer Certifications

Pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18,
United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Adecoagro S.A., a corporation organized under the form of a société
anonymeunder the laws of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (the Company), does hereby certify to such officers
knowledge that:



The annual report on
Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 (the Form 20-F) of the Company fully complies with
the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





|Dated: April 29, 2015 |  |                                   | 
|--------------------- |  | --------------------------------- | 
|                      |  | /s/
    Carlos A. Boero Hughes    | 
|                      |  | Name:  Carlos A. Boero Hughes     | 
|                      |  | Title:    Chief Financial Officer | 



A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 54823.

#### Arrow Mfg. Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 121402-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
IIA 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 25 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to authorize 

the President to reduce or disapprove any appropriation in any bill 

presented by Congress. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 27, 2005 

Mr. TALENT (for himself, Mr. ALLEN, and Mr. COLEMAN) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States to authorize the President to reduce or disapprove 

any appropriation in any bill presented by Congress. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

9 by the Congress: 
2 

•SJ 25 IS

1 ‘‘ARTICLE — 

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. The President may reduce or disapprove 

3 any appropriation in any bill, order, resolution, or vote, 

4 which is presented to the President under section 7 of Ar5 ticle I. 

6 ‘‘SECTION 2. Any legislation that the President ap7 proves and signs, after being amended pursuant to section 

8 1, shall become law as so modified. 

9 ‘‘The President shall return those portions of the leg10 islation that contain reduced or disapproved appropria11 tions with objections to the House where such legislation 

12 originated. 

13 ‘‘Congress may separately consider any reduced or 

14 disapproved appropriations in the manner prescribed 

15 under section 7 of Article I for bills disapproved by the 

16 President. 

17 ‘‘SECTION 3. This article shall take effect on the first 

18 day of the first session of Congress beginning after the 

19 date of ratification.’’. 

Æ
EXHIBIT 31
CERTIFICATION OF SENIOR OFFICER IN CHARGE OF THE SERVICING FUNCTION OF THE SERVICER
PURSUANT TO Rule 15d-14(d)
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 10-D required to be
filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K, of Volkswagen Auto
Lease Trust 2010-A (the Exchange Act periodic reports);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not
contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information
required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included
in the Exchange Act periodic reports;4.
    
    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my
knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance
statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed
in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the
servicing agreement in all material respects; and5.
    
    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance
with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included
as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material
instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on
Form 10-K.
   /s/ Andrew StuartAndrew StuartExecutive Vice President & CFO
(senior officer in charge of the servicing function)
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 3, 2017

s0131 

# Order

Clerk February 3, 2017

154776

VANESSA OZIMEK,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 154776

COA: 331726

Wayne CC: 13

- 109046

- DC

LEE J. RODGERS,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 25, 2016

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral

argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. MCR 7.305(H)(1).

The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order

addressi ng whether the Wayne Circuit Court’s February 8, 2016 order denying the

plaintiff mother’s motion to change the school district that her child attends was “a

postjudgment order affecting the custody of a minor” and therefore a “final order” under

MCR 7.202 (6)(a)(iii). The parties should not submit mere restatements of their

application papers. We further direct the Clerk to schedule the oral argument in this case

for the same future session of the Court when it will hear oral argument in Marik v Marik

(Do cket No. 154549).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2166

LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DONNA E. SHALALA, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA97-2616-S)

Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 16, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order dismissing his

civil complaint, in which he alleged harassment, discrimination,

retaliation, and wrongful termination by his employer. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Wilder v. Shalala, No. CA-97-2616-S (D. Md. Aug.

21, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JAN 22 2001 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
ARTHUR MORRISON,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v. E.W. MORRIS, Warden, Federal Transfer Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States of America, ex rel, Respondent-Appellee. No. 00-6189 & 00-6220 (D.C. No. 99-CV-1906-A) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BRISCOE , LUCERO , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.2--

Appellant Arthur Morrison, a federal prisoner repre senting himself, appeals from orders of the district court that dismissed hi s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice for lack of subject matterjurisdiction, denied his motion for reconsideration, and denied his motion for rele ase on bail and for permission to conduct interrogatories. He has filed motions i n this court for release pending appeal and for an evidentiary hearing on the bail m otion, to dismiss counsel as well as a reply to his attorney’s response moving t o withdraw, to file an oversize reply brief, to supplement his reply brief, and a l etter-affidavit which requests that his issues be adjudicated forthwith. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and af firm. As we have repeatedly explained to appellant, his challenges t o the legality of his conviction and sentence must be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, where he was sentenced. See Morrison v. Pugh , No. 98-1455, 1999 WL 176144 (10th Cir. Mar. 31, 1 999) (unpublished); Morrison v. Pugh , No. 98-1278, 1998 WL 704670 (10th Cir. Oct. 2, 1998) (unpublished); Morrison v. Guzik , Nos. 97-6351, 97-6416, 1998 WL 380539 (10th Cir. June 30, 1998) (unpublished). The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. Appellant’s motion to dismis s counsel and appellant’s3--

counsel’s motion to withdraw are granted. Appellant’s other motions are denied. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

ENTERED FOR THE COURT PER CURIAM
# C_2008207EN.01001401.xml

| 14.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/14

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.5272 — Sony/Sony BMG)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 207/10)

| 1. | On 8 August 2008, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Sony Corporation of America (‘Sony’, Japan), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of Sony BMG Music Entertainment (‘Sony BMG’, USA), by way of purchase of Bertelsmann AG 50 % equity interest in Sony BMG. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 8 August 2008, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Sony Corporation of America (‘Sony’, Japan), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of Sony BMG Music Entertainment (‘Sony BMG’, USA), by way of purchase of Bertelsmann AG 50 % equity interest in Sony BMG.

1

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






  — | for Sony: electronic and electronic consumer products, entertainment and various other businesses, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for Sony: electronic and electronic consumer products, entertainment and various other businesses,

| — | for Sony BMG: recorded music. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Sony BMG: recorded music.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5272 — Sony/Sony BMG, to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5272 — Sony/Sony BMG, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
(Reap. Dec. 9250)

#### A. E. Shahan Company Guy B. Barham Company, Agents *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 7452; 9611; 2286.

(Decided November 10, 1958)

*Lawrence & Tuttle (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Henry J. O’Neill,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement consolidated at the trial, involve chinaware shipped by Taylor *&*Kent, which was appraised at the unit invoice values, plus 50 per centum, less *2}{*per centum plus tea chests and wood packing.

At the trial, counsel for the respective parties stipulated as follows:

> Me. King: * * *

> We offer to stipulate that the chinaware shipped by Taylor & Kent was freely offered to all purchasers for home consumption, in the country of exportation at the time of exportation, and in the principal market thereof, in the usual wholesale quantities, and in the ordinary course of trade, at the invoiced unit values plus 40 per cent, less 2)4 per cent, plus tea chests and wood crates as appraised.

> We further offer to stipulate that at or about the time of exportation, there was no higher freely offered export price for such or similar merchandise as defined in Section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930.

> Mr. O’Neill: The Government so agrees and stipulates.

On the agreed facts I find that foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved herein, and that such value is the invoiced unit values, plus 40 per centum, less 2% per centum, plus tea chests and wood crates, as appraised.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### Gladys JOHNSON v. STATE of Arkansas

CA CR 85-180

704 S.W.2d 647

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

Opinion delivered March 5, 1986

*126
      *William C. McArthur,*for appellant.

*Steve Clark,*Att’y Gen., by: *Theodore Holder,*Asst. Att’y Gen., for appellee.

Per Curiam.

The appellant has appealed from her conviction of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver for which she was sentenced to a term of four years in the Department of Correction. Appellant’s brief does not comply with Rule 9(d) of the Rules of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals.

Rule 9(d) requires that the appellant furnish us an abstract of the record containing a condensation of those material parts of the record which are necessary to an understanding by the court of all questions presented for decision. The main thrust of appellant’s argument is that the trial court erred in not suppressing evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant, contending that the warrant was issued on an insufficient showing of probable cause for a nighttime search. The abstract furnished us does not contain the search warrant, the affidavit, or other documentation on which it was issued. The appellee did not submit a supplemental abstract as permitted by Rule 9(e)(1) but bases his argument on facts not found in the abstract.

On appeal the abstract of the record constitutes the *127record and the appellate court considers only that which is contained in the abstract. We have often stated that where the appellant’s abstract does not contain the testimony on which he bases his argument we will not explore the record for prejudicial error. The scattering of transcript references throughout an argument is not a substitute for a proper abstract. *Kitchen*v. *State,*271 Ark. 1, 607 S.W.2d 345 (1980); *Home v. State,*12 Ark. App. 301, 677 S.W.2d 856 (1984). The court has also pointed out the difficulty of all judges of this court exploring a single record.

The appellant’s brief is flagrantly deficient and causes an unreasonable and unjust delay in the disposition of this case. However, in view of the sentence imposed, this court finds that it would be unjustly harsh to affirm this case for this noncompliance as authorized by the rule.

Pursuant to Rule 9(e)(2), appellant’s attorney will be allowed fifteen days to supplement the abstract to conform to Rule 9(d) at his own expense. The appellee will be allowed fifteen days thereafter to revise or supplement its brief if the supplemented abstract requires it.