alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.16


 


Schedule
of Omitted OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES Agreements


 


As these agreements are identical in every case except for reference
number, description of equipment and pricing information, we have, for ease of reference, filed only one standard agreement and
provided this schedule to indicate the agreements that we have omitted from filing as exhibits to this registration statement on
Form 20-F.


 


		1.	Operation and Maintenance Services Agreement (FV-ASS-COM-70), dated as of April 29, 2019, by and between Sendas Distribuidora
S.A. and GreenYellow do Brasil Energia e Serviços Ltda.



 


		2.	Operation and Maintenance Services Agreement (FV-ASS-COM-82), dated as of April 29, 2019, by and between Sendas Distribuidora
S.A. and GreenYellow do Brasil Energia e Serviços Ltda.



 


		3.	Operation and Maintenance Services Agreement (FV-ASS-COM-84), dated as of April 29, 2019, by and between Sendas Distribuidora
S.A. and GreenYellow do Brasil Energia e Serviços Ltda.



 


		4.	Operation and Maintenance Services Agreement (FV-ASS-COM-111), dated as of April 29, 2019, by and between Sendas Distribuidora
S.A. and GreenYellow do Brasil Energia e Serviços Ltda.



 


		5.	Operation and Maintenance Services Agreement (FV-ASS-COM-131), dated as of April 29, 2019, by and between Sendas Distribuidora
S.A. and GreenYellow do Brasil Energia e Serviços Ltda.



 


		6.	Operation and Maintenance Services Agreement (FV-ASS-COM-133), dated as of April 29, 2019, by and between Sendas Distribuidora
S.A. and GreenYellow do Brasil Energia e Serviços Ltda.



 


		7.	Operation and Maintenance Services Agreement (FV-ASS-COM-135), dated as of April 29, 2019, by and between Sendas Distribuidora
S.A. and GreenYellow do Brasil Energia e Serviços Ltda.
# C_2021357EN.01001703.xml

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/17

---

Order of the President of the Court of 14 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — FC v FTI Touristik GmbH

(Case C-287/21) (1)

(2021/C 357/27)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.

---
H. Res. 138

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

March 24, 1993.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule

XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 670) to require the Secretary of Health and

Human Services to ensure that pregnant women receiving assistance under title X of the Public Health Service Act are

provided with information and counseling regarding their

pregnancies, and for other purposes. The first reading of the

bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined

to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of

the Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general debate the bill shall be considered as read for amendment under

the five-minute rule. No amendment to the bill shall be in

order except those printed in the report of the Committee on

Rules accompanying this resolution. Each amendment may be

offered only in the order printed, may be offered only by the
2

HRES 138 EH

named proponent or a designee, shall be considered as read,

shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally

divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,

shall not be subject to amendment except as specified in the

report, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of

the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

The amendment in the form of a motion to strike specified

in the report to be offered by Representative Bartlett of

Maryland shall not be in order if the text proposed to be

stricken has been rewritten in its entirety by earlier amendment. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for

amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to

the House with such amendments as may have been adopted.

The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the

bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

SEC. 2. House Resolution 81 is hereby laid on the table.

Attest:

Clerk.
# C_2021278EN.01003701.xml

| 12.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/37

---

Action brought on 11 May 2021 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-303/21)

(2021/C 278/51)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Roels and A. Spina, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by excluding non-Italian EU citizens who do not intend to settle in Italy from the scheme providing for the purchase of their first house or flat, other than a luxury house or flat, in the Italian territory, at a reduced rate, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 18 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by excluding non-Italian EU citizens who do not intend to settle in Italy from the scheme providing for the purchase of their first house or flat, other than a luxury house or flat, in the Italian territory, at a reduced rate, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 18 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

| — | order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

A reduced rate of stamp duty for the purchase in Italy of a property for residential use (‘first home’) is applied under certain conditions, including the condition that the property be situated in the municipality where the taxpayer resides or where the taxpayer intends to establish his or her residence within 18 months from the purchase of the property. For the purposes of the application of that tax relief, that condition applies without distinction to both Italian citizens and citizens of other Member States. Nevertheless, according to the provisions at issue in the present action, that requirement is not necessary only for citizens of Italian nationality who, for work reasons, have moved abroad.

According to the Commission, by establishing, for the purposes of that tax relief, that the taxpayers’ Italian citizenship is the determining factor behind the distinction between Italian citizens and citizens of other Member States, the national legislation in question entails direct discrimination on grounds of nationality which is prohibited by Article 18 TFEU.

Furthermore, the Commission considers that, since the purchase of a property in the territory of a Member State by a non-resident is an investment in real estate which falls within the category of the movement of capital between Member States, the preferential treatment of the citizens of one Member State provided for by the national legislation in question constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital which is prohibited by Article 63(1) TFEU and which cannot be objectively justified under Article 65(1) and (3) TFEU.

---
|    |                                                                            |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this transition report on Form 10-K of Magnetek, Inc.; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does 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. |

|                                            |
|--------------------------------------------|
|                                            |  |
| /s/  MARTY J. SCHWENNER               |   |
| Marty J. Schwenner                         |
| Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
# C_2022128EN.01000401.xml

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 3 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — JW, HD, XS v LOT Polish Airlines

(Case C-20/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Second indent of Article 7(1)(b) - Special jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract - Concept of ‘place of performance of the obligation in question’ - Contract for the provision of services - Air transport - Flight consisting of a confirmed single booking and performed in several legs by two separate air carriers - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights - Article 7 - Right to compensation - Delay on the first leg of the journey - Claim for compensation brought against the air carrier operating that first leg of the journey before the court for the place of arrival of that first flight)

(2022/C 128/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: JW, HD, XS

Defendant: LOT Polish Airlines

Operative part of the judgment

The second indent of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in respect of a flight consisting of a confirmed single booking for the entire journey and divided into two or more legs on which transport is performed by separate air carriers, where a claim for compensation, brought on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, arises exclusively from a delay of the first leg of the journey caused by a late departure and is brought against the air carrier operating that first leg, the place of arrival for that first leg may not be classified as a ‘place of performance’ within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 98, 22.3.2021.

---
No. 10732.

#### The City of Columbus *v.*The Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.

Decided February 23, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Franklin county.

*Mr. George S. Marshall,*citv solicitor; *Mr. Edgar L. Weinland*and *Mr. Fred R. Hoover,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Flenderson, Lives ay & Burr,*for defendant in error.

Judgment modified as stated in journal entry.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment and decree of the said circuit court be and the same hereby is modified so as to require the said defendant, The Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company, to erect *476or cause to be erected, at its own expense, on its said property, being the third and fourth parcels described in the petition, on the west side of said viaduct, from the north line, of the defendant’s said property on High street, adjacent to said viaduct, southerly to the intersection of High street and Maple street at the same elevation and with the same clearance as that of the viaduct, namely, sixteen feet, three inches, neat and ornamental buildings of the kind of material, size and style of the defendant’s said existing buildings, erected by it, fronting on the east side of said viaduct, to be commenced by said defendant within sixty days after this decree has been entered on the journal of this court, and to .be prosecuted without unnecessary delay, and to be fully completed within two years after the entering of this decree. And this court doth reserve the consideration of all further directions and modifications of said judgment and decree and of the obligation of the said defendant in error to build on other portions of its said property, particularly on that property fronting on the viaduct south of Maple street and either party shall be at liberty to apply to the court as occasion shall require. In all other respects said judgment and decree is affirmed. Ordered that the further consideration of this case be adjourned until the further order of the court. Ordered that the cross-petition in error herein be and the same is hereby dismissed at the costs of the said defendant in error herein, and it is further ordered that the said defendant in error pay its own costs herein and that the plaintiff in error herein recover its costs from the said defendant in *477error.

Crew, C. J., Summers, Spear, Davis, Shaucic and Price, JJ., concur.
[No. 584-1.

Division One—Panel 2.

July 12, 1971.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Michael James Sarrett, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 53465, Frank H. Roberts, Jr., J., entered May 14, 1970. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7120

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARCELLUS JAMES FENNELL, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:08-cr-00077-D-1)

Submitted: September 28, 2023 Decided: October 2, 2023

Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marcellus James Fennell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 20-7120 Doc: 11 Filed: 10/02/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

Marcellus James Fennell, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion 

for a sentence reduction under § 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 

132 Stat. 5194, 5222. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did 

not abuse its discretion in denying a sentence reduction. See Concepcion v. United States, 

142 S. Ct. 2389, 2404-05 (2022) (explaining standard). Accordingly, we affirm the district 

court’s order. United States v. Fennell, No. 7:08-cr-00077-D-1 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 16, 2020).*

 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED

* This appeal was held in abeyance for United States v. Stokes, No. 20-6021, 2023 

WL 5014095 (4th Cir. Aug. 7, 2023).

USCA4 Appeal: 20-7120 Doc: 11 Filed: 10/02/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
June 29 , 2010

MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Raw data supporting the following documents: “Preliminary Review of Environmental Justice Impacts ” Document ID: EPA - HQ - RCRA - 2008 - 0329 - 0519 , “Preliminary Environmental Justice Analysis for Diversion of Secondary Materials and Other Impacts Relating to the Proposed Rule: Identification of Non

-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid W aste” Document ID: EPA - HQ - RCRA - 2008 - 0329 - 0527 FROM: Tab Tesnau

O ffice of Resource Conservation and Recovery TO: Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - RCRA - 2008 - 0329 The raw data was requested to be posted in the docket that supports the “Preliminary Review of Environmental Justice Impacts ” and the “Preliminary Environmental Justice Analysis for Diversion of Secondary Materials and Other Impacts Relating to the Proposed Rule: Identification of Non

-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid W aste . ” These data are being added for your convenience in the docket location that stores cop yri ghted information . The full data includes cop yri ghted informat ion so it is not being posted in the electronic docket. A version of the demographics without the copy righted material will be placed in the electronic docket at regulations.gov. Attachment : Raw Data of Demographics at 1 and 3 mile s around Facilities E xpected to Receive Diverted M aterials
#### ORANGE MOTORS OF MIAMI, INC., a Florida corporation, Petitioner, v. Cathie V. WOLF, Respondent.

No. 44682.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 13, 1974.

Certiorari denied. 284 So.2d 422.

ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

McCAIN, J., dissents.
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 209

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require a twothirds vote to waive any rule of the House of Representatives, and

for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 28, 1993

Mr. ROYCE submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Rules

RESOLUTION

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to

require a two-thirds vote to waive any rule of the House

of Representatives, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved, (a) That clause 4 of rule XI of the Rules

2 of the House of Representatives is amended by adding at

3 the end the following:

4 ‘‘(e) It shall not be in order in the House to waive

5 any point of order or to agree to any order or resolution

6 reported from the Committee on Rules providing for the

7 consideration of any bill or resolution that waives any

8 point of order against that bill or resolution or against

9 its consideration, unless the waiver or the resolution or
2

•HRES 209 IH

1 order is approved by not less than two-thirds of the Mem2 bers voting, a quorum being present.’’.

3 (b) The last sentence of clause 4(b) of rule XI of the

4 Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by in5 serting before the period the following: ‘‘; nor shall it re6 port any rule or order which would waive paragraph (e)’’.

Æ
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-28516 09-OCT-2012 02:23 PM NO. SCWC-28516
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I GERARD R. LALES, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs. WHOLESALE MOTORS COMPANY, dba JN AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, JOHNNY MARTINEZ, and GARY MARXEN, SR., Petitioners/Defendants-Appellees.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (ICA NO. 28516; CV. NO. 03-1-2415)
ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and McKenna, JJ., and Circuit Judge Browning, in place of Pollack, J., recused) Petitioners/Defendants-Appellees JN Group, Inc., fka Wholesale Motors, Inc., dba JN Automotive Group, Johnny Martinez and Gary Marxen, Sr.’s application for writ of certiorari, filed on September 4, 2012, is hereby accepted and will be scheduled for oral argument. The parties will be notified by the appellate clerk regarding scheduling.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, October 9, 2012. Christopher J. Muzzi for petitioners /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama Daphne E. Barbee for respondent /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ R. Mark Browning
# C_2021252EN.01001801.xml

| 28.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/18

---

Appeal brought on 3 May 2021 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 24 February 2021 in Case T-161/18, Braesch and Others v Commission

(Case C-284/21 P)

(2021/C 252/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and K. Blanck, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Anthony Braesch, Trinity Investments DAC, Bybrook Capital Master Fund LP, Bybrook Capital Hazelton Master Fund LP, Bybrook Capital Badminton Fund LP

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | rule itself on the application at first instance and reject the application as inadmissible; and |
| --- | --- |

—

rule itself on the application at first instance and reject the application as inadmissible; and

| — | order the other parties to the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other parties to the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits a single ground of appeal.

According to the appellant, the General Court breached Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 1(h) of the State Aid Procedural Regulation (1) by erroneously qualifying the applicants at first instance as ‘parties concerned’ or ‘interested parties’.

On that basis, the General Court erroneously concluded that the applicants at first instance had standing to bring proceedings under the fourth limb of Article 263 TFEU against the Commission’s Decision C(2017) 4690 final of 4 July 2017 on State Aid SA.47677 (2017/N) authorising compatible state aid by Italy in favour of Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015, L 248, p. 9).

---
DISMISS and Opinion Filed July 13, 2015 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01222-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF D.C. AND Q.C., CHILDREN 

On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 429-01053-2013 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

Before the Court is appellant’s amended motion to withdraw the appeal. Appellant has 

informed the Court that she is unable to continue with the appeal. We grant appellant’s amended 

motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). 

141222F.P05 

 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

IN THE INTEREST OF D.C. AND Q.C., 

CHILDREN 

No. 05-14-01222-CV 

 On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District 

Court, Collin County, Texas. 

Trial Court Cause No. 429-01053-2013. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart, 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. 

 It is ORDERED that the parties bear their own costs of this appeal. 

Judgment entered July 13, 2015.