alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:(1) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-65096) pertaining to the Virco Mfg. Corporation 1993 Stock Incentive Plan, (2) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-32539) pertaining to the Virco Mfg. Corporation 1997 Stock Incentive Plan, (3) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-51717) pertaining to the Virco Mfg. Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and (4) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-74832) pertaining to the Virco Mfg. Corporation 401(K) Savings Plan (5) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-143874) pertaining to the Virco Mfg. Corporation 2007 Stock Incentive Planof ourreports dated April 15, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements andschedule of Virco Mfg. Corporation and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting of Virco Mfg. Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form10-K) for the year ended January 31, 2008./s/ Ernst & Young LLPLos Angeles, California
# C_2022424EN.01001101.xml

| 7.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 2 de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria — Spain) — Zulima v Servicios prescriptor y medios de pagos EFC SAU

(Case C-215/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Revolving credit agreement - Unfairness of the term relating to the rate of remunerative interest - Action brought by a consumer for a declaration that that agreement is void - Satisfaction of that consumer’s claims out of court - Costs incurred having to be borne by the consumer - Principle of effectiveness - National legislation capable of dissuading the consumer from exercising the rights conferred by Directive 93/13/EEC)

(2022/C 424/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 2 de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ms Zulima

Defendant: Servicios prescriptor y medios de pagos EFC SAU

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, read in the light of the principle of effectiveness,

must be interpreted as:

not precluding national legislation, under which, in the context of court proceedings relating to a finding that a term in a contract between a seller or supplier and a consumer is unfair, the consumer concerned must, in the event that his or her claims are satisfied out of court, bear his or her own costs, provided that the court hearing the case necessarily takes account of any bad faith on the part of the seller or supplier concerned and, where appropriate, orders the latter to pay the costs relating to the court proceedings which that consumer was required to institute in order to assert the rights conferred on him or her by Directive 93/13.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 9.8.2021.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Statement of Financial Condition at September 30, 2000 (Unaudited) and the
Statement of Operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2000 (Unaudited)
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         3,678,473
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    270,810
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (80,000)
<INVENTORY>                                      661,924
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5,357,240
<PP&E>                                           864,835
<DEPRECIATION>                                   351,280
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6,125,117
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,221,684
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                         180,250
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,723,183
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6,125,117
<SALES>                                        1,174,912
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,174,912
<CGS>                                          1,025,669
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 12,522,527
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 181,615
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               217,587
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (12,409,256)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (12,409,256)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (0.71)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.71)



</TABLE>
#### Arthur WEISER, Appellant, v. ATLAS CONSTRUCTION, INC., Appellee.

No. 71-249.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 5, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 23.2
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
  (1)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-46656) pertaining to the 1984 Stock Option
Plan of Vicor Corporation,(2)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-65154) pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option
Plan of Vicor Corporation,(3)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-61177) pertaining to the 1998 Stock Option
and Incentive Plan of Vicor Corporation,(4)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-44790) pertaining to the 2000 Stock Option
and Incentive Plan of Vicor Corporation, and
 (5)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-99423) pertaining to the Amended and
Restated 2000 Stock Option and Incentive Plan of Vicor Corporation;
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7287
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JASON JONES, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Ale xandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge; Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-95-64) Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: November 25, 1997 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jason Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Timothy Joseph Shea, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his "Motion for Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc." We have reviewed the record andthe district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Jones , No. CR-95-64 (E.D. Va. July 11, 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
# C_2022222EN.01002602.xml

| 7.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/26

---

Order of the President of the Court of 15 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Járásbíróság — Hungary) — JH v Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.)

(Case C-771/21) (1)

(2022/C 222/42)

Language of the case: Hungarian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 21.3.2022.

---
259 La. 759

#### Succession of Filippo QUAGLINO, Sr. and Succession of Josephine Fazzio Quaglino (two cases). Succession of Filippo (or Phillip) QUAGLINO.

No. 51604.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 28, 1971.

In re: Succession of Filippo Quaglino, Sr. and the Succession of Josephine Fazzio Quaglino applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 248 So.2d 380.

Writ refused. The judgment is correct.
#### Hugh BOYD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-288.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 24, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Culver Smith, Judge.

Appeal quashed.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

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

 

In connectionwith the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Mackie Designs Inc. forthe quarterly period ended June 30, 2002, I, James T. Engen, President andChief Executive Officer of MackieDesigns Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S. C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)          such Form 10-Q for the quarterly periodended June 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          the information contained in such Form 10-Qfor the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of Mackie DesignsInc.

 

 
| Dated:  August 14, 2002 | By:    | /s/ James T. Engen                                       |   |
|------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                         |   | James T.  Engen

*President and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 504 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 504

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        August 4, 1994.
    Resolved, That all points of order against the conference report to 
accompany the bill (H.R. 4426) making appropriations for foreign operations, 
export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1995, and against its consideration are waived.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### William PALLADINO, Petitioner, v. Honorable Jack M. TURNER, as Judge of the Criminal Court of Record, Dade County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 42120.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 7, 1972.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Bennett H. Brummer, Asst. Public Defender, for petitioner.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.-

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the petition for writ of mandamus, the brief of petitioner, and the return of the respondent, we conclude that the alternative writ should be discharged without prejudice. Petitioner *207may reapply for bail pending appeal in accord with the standards enunciated in Younghans v. State, 90 So.2d 308 (Fla.1956) and F.A.R. 6.15(b), 32 F.S.A.; however, on reapplication petitioner remains subject to existing statutory limitations on bail, including Fla.Stat. § 903.132, F.S.A., as may be applicable.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
FOUND IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> CANADIAN
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 1.3813
<CASH>                                          36,862
<SECURITIES>                                       590
<RECEIVABLES>                                   60,345
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     34,540
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               136,962
<PP&E>                                         661,655
<DEPRECIATION>                                  84,183
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 783,375
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           77,962
<BONDS>                                        241,728
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       378,989
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,989
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   783,375
<SALES>                                        160,579
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               160,579
<CGS>                                          182,536
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  182,536
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,529
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (65,833)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,269)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (62,564)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (62,564)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.45)
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

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.

August 4, 2017

d0801 

# Order

Clerk August 4, 2017

156148

In re CALDWELL/BARRINGTON, Minors. SC: 156148

COA: 335173

Macomb CC Family Division:

2012

- 000186

- NA

2012

- 000187

- NA

2012

- 000188

- NA

2012

- 000189

- NA

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 20, 2017

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 32-1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Goldfield Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the six months ended June 30, 2010
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John H. Sottile, Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | 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.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The Goldfield Corporation and
will be retained by The Goldfield Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



/S/    JOHN H.
SOTTILEJohn H. SottileChairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)August 13, 2010
#### MARATHON PIPE LINE COMPANY v. Mrs. Charlie Holcombe PITCHER.

No. 62768.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 15, 1978.

In re: Mrs. Charlie Holcombe Pitcher, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of East Baton Rouge. 361 So.2d 314.

Granted.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
#### Lee A. JOHNSON and Deborah Sue Johnson by Next Friend and Father, Lee A. Johnson v. NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE CO. and The Travelers Indemnity Co.

No. 46844.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Nov. 6, 1972.

Sullivan, Sullivan & Keyes, Jackson, for appellant.

Crisler & Crisler, Daniel, Coker, Horton, Bell & Dukes, John B. Clark, Jackson, for appellees.

Before GILLESPIE, C. J., and PATTERSON, SMITH, ROBERTSON and SUGG, JJ.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hinds County; M. M. McGowan, Judge.

Affirmed.
No. 10648.

#### Wehner *v.*Kimmig et al.

Decided January 19, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Montgomery county.

*Messrs. Wright & Ozias*and *Mr. Carl L. Baumann,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. John W. Kreitser,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Summers, Spear, Davis and Sitaucic, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.43


 


REDACTED


 


Certain identified information,
indicated by [*****], has been excluded from the exhibit because it is both (i) not material and (ii) would likely cause competitive
harm if publicly disclosed.


 





 


AMENDMENT 4

 to


DEFINITIVE AGREEMENT 1


Investment ID INV-020846 (previously 25808)


 


AMENDMENT SUMMARY AND SIGNATURE PAGE


 


	AMENDMENT INFORMATION	 
	Agreement to be Amended:  	Definitive Agreement 4 between the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and CureVac AG, effective May 15, 2014, and bearing Investment ID INV-020846
	Agreement Title:  	Assessment of RNA Vaccine Technology for Non-live Rotavirus Vaccines in Pre- clinical Models
	“Amendment Effective Date”:	Date of last signature below
	Amendment Purpose:	Supplement
	 	 
	This Amendment includes	This Amendment Summary and Signature Page and:
	and incorporates into the	·    Amended Timeline (Attachment C-4 – Appendix 1, Section I,4)
	Agreement by this reference:	·    Amended Budget and Payment (Attachment D-4 - Appendix 1, Section II, 1)
	     	 




 





THIS AMENDMENT amends,
and is made part of, the above-referenced Agreement and is effective as of the Amendment Effective Date. Capitalized terms not
defined in this Amendment will have the meaning provided in the Agreement. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other terms
and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect. By signing below, each Party acknowledges that it has carefully
read and fully understood this Amendment, and each agrees to be bound by its terms. Facsimile and electronic signatures will be
binding for all purposes.


 


	BILL
    & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION	 	CUREVAC
    AG
	 	 	 
	/s/
    [*****]	 	/s/ [*****]
	By:[*****]	 	By: [*****]
	Title: /[*****]	 	Title: [*****]
	 	 	 
	November
    3, 2020	 	2020.11.10
	Date	 	Date
	 	 	 
	 	 	/s/ [*****]
	 	 	By: [*****]
	 	 	Title: [*****]
	 	 	 
	 	 	2020.11.13
	 	 	Date


 






    1 of 3


     


    

 


AMENDMENT 4


to


WORK ORDER





Investment ID INV-020846 (previously 25808)


 


ATTACHMENT C-4





AMENDED TIMELINE


 


The Parties agree to amend Appendix 1 of the Agreement as provided
below.


 





 






    2 of 3


     


    

 


AMENDMENT 4 


to


WORK ORDER





Investment ID INV-020846 (previously 25808)


 


ATTACHMENT D-4





AMENDED BUDGET AND PAYMENT


 


1.       Overall Cost
Estimates


 





 






    3 of 3
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. 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 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41516 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ARTEMIO ANDRADE-REAL Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:06-CR-776-ALL
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Artemio Andrade-Real (Andrade) appeals his conviction and sentence following his guilty plea to illegal reentry intothis country following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Andrade asserts that his 41-month guidelines sentence violates United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and is unreasonable. Andrade argues that this court’s post-Booker sentencing jurisprudence effectively reinstates the mandatory nature of the Guidelines by United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 24, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 06-41516

2 bestowing a presumption of reasonableness on sentences that fall within the advisory sentencing guideline range. The 41-month term ofimprisonment imposed in Andrade’s case fell within his properly-calculated guidel ines range and is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). Andrade correctly concedes that his argument that the presumption of reasonableness used by this court returns the G uidelines to their formerly unconstitutional, mandatory status is foreclosed. See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-68 (2007). Because the district court exercised its discretion to impose a sentencewithin a properly calculated guidelines range, the sentence is presumptively reasonable, and we may infer that the district court considered all the factors for a fair sentence set forth in the Guidelines. See Rita, 127 S. Ct. at 2462-70; United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006); U nited States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir. 2005). Andrade has not rebutted the presumption that his sentence is unreasonable. Nothing in the record indicates that the district court failed to afford appropriate weight to relevant factors, considered any irrelevant factors,
or balanced the factors unreasonably. See United States v. Nikonova, 480 F.3d 371, 376 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed (May 21, 2007) (No. 06-11834). In light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), Andrade challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements ofthe offense that must be found by a jury. This court has held that this issue is “fully foreclosed from further debate.” U nited States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed (Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### U. S. FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. CITY OF MIAMI et al., Appellees.

No. 73-933.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 14, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Sam CAPITANO Jr., d/b/a El-Cap Construction Company v. HUBER, HUNT & NICHOLS, INC. and Blount Brothers Corporation (A Joint Venture) and Louisiana Stadium and Exposition District.

No. 62668.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 15, 1978.

In re: Sam Capitano, Jr., d/b/a El-Cap Construction Company, applying for certio-rari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied. The result is correct.

TATE, J.

is of the opinion the writ should be granted as to assignment 2 (denial of legal interest from date of judicial demand), but otherwise, denied.

CALOGERO, J., Recused.