alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 12.1**

 

**Certification by the Chief Executive Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Colin Broom, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Nabriva Therapeutics AG (the “Company”);

 

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;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and have:

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the Annual Report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date:   April 28, 2016 |
|-----------------------------|
|                        |   |
| By:                         | /s/ Colin Broom |   |
| Name:                       | Colin Broom |   |
| Title:                      | Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

----
# Official Journal C 90/25 F

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 90 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6525 February 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 90

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6525 February 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2022/C 90/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2022/C 90/02 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections | 13 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2022/C 90/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  )

1

1

2022/C 90/02

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections

13

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
# Official Journal L 327/24 N

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 327 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 4924 November 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 327

English edition

Legislation

Volume 4924 November 2006

---

| Contents | | I   Acts whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Regulation (EC) No 1717/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 establishing an Instrument for Stability | 1 |
| | * | Decision No 1718/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 concerning the implementation of a programme of support for the European audiovisual sector (MEDIA 2007) | 12 |
| | * | Decision No 1714/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 establishing the ‘Youth in Action’ programme for the period 2007 to 2013 | 30 |
| | * | Decision No 1720/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 establishing an action programme in the field of lifelong learning | 45 |

Contents

I   Acts whose publication is obligatory

page

*

Regulation (EC) No 1717/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 establishing an Instrument for Stability

1

*

Decision No 1718/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 concerning the implementation of a programme of support for the European audiovisual sector (MEDIA 2007)

12

*

Decision No 1714/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 establishing the ‘Youth in Action’ programme for the period 2007 to 2013

30

*

Decision No 1720/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 establishing an action programme in the field of lifelong learning

45

| 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.
{"agency":"Treasury","generated":"2015-03-31 14:35:48","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"}],"value":"2015"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q1"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"10"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":null}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["BEP","DO","FinCEN","Fiscal Service","IRS","MINT","OCC","TIGTA","TTB"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["24","179","75","75","2672","31","399","61","16"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["21","124","90","75","2809","35","407","67","17"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["26","896"," "," ","1157"," ","34"," "," "]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2015","quarter":"Q1"}
# Banks QSBL

Page &P of &N

# CDLFs QSBL

Page &P of &N

# image1.png
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE FISCAL QUARTER ENDED JULY 3, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-03-1999
<CASH>                                           7,041
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,382
<ALLOWANCES>                                       703
<INVENTORY>                                     16,928
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,768
<PP&E>                                          25,943
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,633
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  64,413
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,447
<BONDS>                                          6,010
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            98
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,647
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    64,413
<SALES>                                         43,807
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                43,807
<CGS>                                           37,222
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   37,222
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,867
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    76
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (992)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,366)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (381)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (985)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (985)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.14)


</TABLE>
#### SHEPHERD v. HILL et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 30, 1951.

Combs & Combs, Prestonsburg, for appellant.

V. R. Bentley, Pikeville, for appellees.

WADDILL, Commissioner.

The basis of this suit is a $5,000 promissory note executed by Dr. W. J. Hill to R. L. Shepherd. The court found that the note was executed for a fraudulent purpose and without consideration and dismissed the petition seeking a recovery upon it.

In 1931 Dr. Hill was an accommodation endorser on several notes held by the First National Bank of Stone, Kentucky. During that year the bank went into receivership. In an effort to avoid his liability on these notes, Dr. Hill executed his note dated January 8, 1934, for $5,000' to his brother-in-law, R. L. Shepherd. A suit was filed by Shepherd in 1936 to enforce its collection, but no action was. taken to reduce to judgment, and in 1941 the suit was ordered dismissed for lack of prosecution.

Shepherd was committed to- a mental institution in 1938 and Dr. Hill died in 1947. The present action was filed March 12, 1948, by the divorced wife of Shepherd, who had qualified as his committee, against the heirs-at-law of Dr. Hill. The suit was. defended upon the grounds sustained by the court.

It is a well settled proposition of law that, as between the original parties, the consideration of a promissory note may be impeached and an absence or failure of consideration will bar a recovery. KRS 356.028; First State Bank of Nortonville v. Morton et al., 146 Ky. 287, 142 S.W. 694.

Inasmuch as Shepherd had not negotiated the note, the parties to this action stand in the same position as the original parties to the note, thus making available the plea that no consideration had. been given for the note.

The court tried the case without, the intervention of a jury and filed a. written opinion from which the following-excerpt is taken: “Judge Hill seems to-agree in his testimony that there was no. consideration for the note and that Dr. Hill did not owe R. L. Shepherd the amount of this note or other sum. If Dr. Hill had owed R. L. Shepherd the said sum sued for or any substantial part thereof, judgment would have been taken. The note was due January 8, 1935, and Dr. Hill did not die until the first part of the year,. 1947, almost twelve years after the note-allegedly became due and payable. People just don’t forget about having a debt of $5,000 and the conduct of the parties, shows that the note was without consideration and fraudulently executed as between the maker and the holder of the note.” The witness, “Judge Hill” referred to in the opinion, was a member of the law firm *1017that filed the suit for Shepherd in 1936 upon the note.

We have considered the entire record in this case and are of the opinion that the court correctly decided the controversy.

Judgment affirmed.
**Domtar Ashdown Mill- Power Boiler No. 2**

Cost-Effectiveness of Increasing the Control Efficiency of Existing Scrubbers to 90% through Use of Additional Scrubbing Reagent:

**Calculation of Current Control Efficiency of Existing Scrubbers**
Monthly AVG % SO2 Removal for Permit Compliance (As reported by Domtar in the Excel file titled “Domtar 2PB Monthly SO2 Data," which was included as an attachment to the August 29, 2014 letter from Annabeth Reitter, Corporate Manager of Environmental Regulation, Domtar, to Dayana Medina, U.S. EPA Region 6.)

Jan-11 66.78% Feb-11 57.01% Mar-11 56.91% Apr-11 60.91% May-11 72.26% Jun-11 82.74% Jul-11 80.14% Aug-11 67.99% Sep-11 78.96% Oct-11 65.73% Nov-11 59.65% Dec-11 69.66% Jan-12 67.37% Feb-12 65.09% Mar-12 66.91% Apr-12 63.17% May-12 67.81% Jun-12 68.02% Jul-12 66.33% Aug-12 64.65% Sep-12 90.50% Oct-12 67.69% Nov-12 61.36% Dec-12 56.52% Jan-13 65.41% Feb-13 67.94% Mar-13 64.05% Apr-13 65.05% May-13 68.81% Jun-13 68.77% Jul-13 82.95% Aug-13 73.87% Sep-13 76.66% Oct-13 74.48% Nov-13 75.66% Dec-13 86.56%**Average % SO2 Removal during 3-year period:** 69.29%

2001-2003 Actual Baseline Emissions for Power Boiler No. 2: 2,078 SO2 tpy Assuming scrubbers are curently achieving ~69.3 % SO2 removal, U= 100% uncontrolled SO2 emissions :

U x (1 - 0.693) = Actual Controlled Emission Rate (i.e., 69.3% control efficiency) U x (1 -0.693) = 2,078 SO2 tpy U= 6,769 SO2 tpy

**Annual Emissions Reductions:**
Total Emissions Reductions from operating scrubbers at 90% Control Efficiency=6,769 x 0.90 = 6,092 SO2 tpy Controlled SO2 Emission Rate (90% Control Efficiency)= 6,769 - 6,092 = 677 SO2 tpy Annual Emissions Reductions from Increasing Control Efficiency 69.3% to 90%=2,078 - 677 = 1,401 SO2 tpy

**Average Cost-Effectiveness Calculations:**
Average cost-effectiveness=Total Annual Cost/ Annual Emissions Reductions $1,976,554.01/ 1,401 SO2 tpy removed =$1,411/ SO2 tons removedCost-Effectiveness of Increasing the Control Efficiency of Existing Scrubbers to 90% through Use of Additional Scrubbing Reagent:

(As reported by Domtar in the Excel file titled “Domtar 2PB Monthly SO2 Data," which was included as an attachment to the August 29, 2014 letter from Annabeth Reitter, CorporateAssuming scrubbers are curently achieving ~69.3 % SO2 removal, U= 100% uncontrolled SO2 emissions :

6,769 x 0.90 = 6,092 SO2 tpy 6,769 - 6,092 = 677 SO2 tpy 2,078 - 677 = 1,401 SO2 tpy

$1,411/ SO2 tons removed
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § CASE NO.: 3:22-CR-224-X

§

VICKIE RENEE BUGGS (1) §

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

After reviewing all relevant matters of record, including the Notice Regarding Entry of a Plea of Guilty, 

the Consent of the defendant, and the Report and Recommendation Concerning Plea of Guilty of the United 

States Magistrate Judge, and no objections thereto having been filed within fourteen days of service in 

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the Report and 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge concerning the Plea of Guilty is correct, and it is hereby accepted by 

the Court. Accordingly, the Court accepts the plea of guilty, and VICKIE RENEE BUGGS (1) is hereby 

adjudged guilty of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) – Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to 

Distribute. Sentence will be imposed in accordance with the Court's scheduling order.

⌧ The defendant is ordered to remain in custody.

☐ The Court adopts the findings of the United States Magistrate Judge by clear and convincing evidence 

that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if 

released and should therefore be released under § 3142(b) or (c).

☐ Upon motion, this matter shall be set for hearing before the United States Magistrate Judge who set 

the conditions of release for determination, by clear and convincing evidence, of whether the 

defendant is likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released under § 

3142(b) or (c).

☐ The defendant is not ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) pending determination of 

whether it has been clearly shown that there are exceptional circumstances under § 3145(c) why the 

defendant should not be detained under § 3143(a)(2), and whether it has been shown by clear and 

convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the 

community if released under § 3142(b) or (c). This matter shall be referred to the United States 

Magistrate Judge who set the conditions of release.

Signed this 28th day of December 2023.

________________________________

BRANTLEY STARR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:22-cr-00224-X Document 52 Filed 12/28/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 94
#### Jasco Aluminum Products Corporation, Plaintiff, *v.*Anthony Gobeil et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Nassau County,

December 10, 1957.

*494*Greenhill & Greenhill*for Travelers Fire Insurance Company, defendant.

*Bernstein, Margolin & Balin*for plaintiff.

Marcus G. Christ, J.

This is a motion by the defendant, Travelers Fire Insurance Co., for judgment dismissing the complaint as against such defendant pursuant to subdivision *4*of rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice. The third cause of action alleges “that during the course of contracts for bailment between plaintiff and defendants ” a contract of insurance was entered into by the defendants Grobeil and Liebman with the defendant, Travelers Fire Insurance Co., “ for the benefit of the plaintiff ’ ’. It is alleged that plaintiff was advised of such contract after inquiry and that a certificate bearing No. 7812, copy of which is annexed to and made a part of the complaint, was delivered to the plaintiff. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that by reason of such contract of insurance, Travelers Fire Insurance Co. owes the plaintiff $10,000 for damages sustained by plaintiff which sum has not been paid though demanded by the plaintiff.

On its face the certificate does not purport to be anything more than a certification by Travelers Fire Insurance Co. that one Anthony Grobeil has insurance of that company under one of its policies; that the amount of such policy is $10,000; that such policy provides coverage of an unspecified nature on “vehicles owned, leased or operated by or for the assured that the policy terminates September 17, 1957; and that loss is to be adjusted with the assured in conformity with the conditions of such policy and payable to the assured or order. The name of the plaintiff does not appear anywhere in the body of the certificate. In. the lower left-hand corner of the form of certificate there is typed the following legend:

> “ *Copy for*

> Jasco Aluminum Products Co.

> P. O. Box 2090 Jericho Turnpike

> New Hyde Park, New York ”

This is the only reference to the plaintiff in or on the certificate upon which plaintiff predicates its claim against the moving defendant. There is no language in the certificate indicating directly or indirectly that the plaintiff was a beneficiary pf or otherwise interested in the insurance granted to *495Gobeil. The certificate relied upon amounts to no more than a certification by the insurer that Gobeil has insurance with Travelers Fire Insurance Co. in the amount specified. There is nothing in such certificate to sustain plaintiff’s allegation that the insurance referred to therein was *' ‘*for the benefit of the plaintiff

The motion is granted with leave to the plaintiff, if so advised, to serve an amended complaint within 20 days after service of a copy of the order to be entered hereon, with notice of entry.

Settle order on notice.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Plaintiff

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

v.

Defendant

Civil Action No.

CLERK'S ENTRY OF DEFAULT

 The record reflects that service of the complaint has been made upon the 

named below:

 It appears from the record that service of the complaint has been made, that the 

has failed to answer or otherwise defend as directed within the time allowed, and that the Plaintiff 

has shown that failure through affidavit or otherwise. 

 

 Therefore, upon Plaintiff's request, DEFAULT is entered against the 

named above.

KAREN S. MITCHELL, CLERK 

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

By: Deputy Clerk on

Dallas Division Diby Ako 3:22-cv-01751-S Arriva Best Security Inc et al Defendant

Arriva Best Security Inc

Defendant Defendant s/O. Hernandez 8/30/2023

Case 3:22-cv-01751-S Document 27 Filed 08/30/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 95