alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-4.3



 Exhibit 4.3 

CONSENT OF NATIONAL BANK FINANCIAL INC. 

We refer to the Fairness Opinion (the “Fairness Opinion”) dated October 2, 2017, which we prepared for the board of directors
of The Jean Coutu Group (PJC) Inc. (the “Company”) in connection with the amalgamation between the Company and Metro Subco (as defined in the Information Circular). We consent to the inclusion of the Fairness Opinion in the Information
Circular, dated October 30, 2017, which in turn is included in the Registration Statement on Form F-8 of METRO Inc., dated the date hereof (the “Registration Statement”) and filed with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission (the “SEC”). We also consent to the inclusion of our firm name in the Information Circular. In giving such consent, we do not admit that we come within the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of
the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Act”), or the rules and regulations adopted by the SEC thereunder, nor do we admit that we are experts with respect to any part of the Registration Statement within the meaning of the term
“experts” as used in the Act or the rules and regulations of the SEC thereunder. 
  

			
	National Bank Financial Inc.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Elaine Barsalou
	Name:	 	Elaine Barsalou
	Title:	 	Managing Director, Investment Banking
	 Montréal, Québec

	 October 30, 2017
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FROM FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       3,613,068
<SECURITIES>                                 2,694,575
<RECEIVABLES>                                  672,076
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,590,983
<PP&E>                                       1,188,731
<DEPRECIATION>                                 336,667
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,185,149
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,803,509
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        38,318
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,343,322
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,185,149
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,768,217
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,994,232
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,363,200
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,231
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,533,209
<INCOME-TAX>                                   481,666
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,051,543
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,051,543
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.29
        

</TABLE>
# C_2023064EN.01000101.xml

| 21.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10797 – PCG / PERSTORP)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 64/01)

On 8 September 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10797. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10797. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

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


<ARTICLE>                                7
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                    0001013698
<NAME>                                   Symons International Group
<MULTIPLIER>                             1
<CURRENCY>                               U.S. Dollars

<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                             MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                          1
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     0
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                    196,916,000
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                      196,916,000
<EQUITIES>                                12,516,000
<MORTGAGE>                                 2,059,000
<REAL-ESTATE>                                      0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                           230,696,000
<CASH>                                     4,373,000
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                        61,555,000
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                    14,907,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           681,328,000
<POLICY-LOSSES>                          177,806,000
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                      176,021,000
<POLICY-OTHER>                                     0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                              0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                            4,520,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                              135,000,000
<COMMON>                                  38,136,000
<OTHER-SE>                                21,457,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             681,328,000
<PREMIUMS>                                64,337,000
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                        3,289,000
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                        (1,382,000)
<OTHER-INCOME>                             4,463,000
<BENEFITS>                                56,487,000
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>               14,263,000
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                      11,892,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            1,649,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 616,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        1,033,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                              (1,022,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.10)
<RESERVE-OPEN>                           177,806,000
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                       41,732,000
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                        136,074,000
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                        19,880,000
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                          59,773,000
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                           68,566,000
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                   20,200,000



</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

Certification

I, John
McDermott, certify pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that:



| | (1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010 (the Quarterly Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 780(d)); and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                   |  |     |  |                                      
|------------------ |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: May 10, 2010 |  | By: |  | /s/ John McDermott                   
|                   |  |     |  | John McDermott                       
|                   |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

This certification
accompanies the Quarterly Report pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2373 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the credit for 

production of refined coal. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 5, 2018 

Mr. HOEVEN (for himself and Ms. HEITKAMP) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

the credit for production of refined coal. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF REFINED COAL PRODUCTION 

4 TAX CREDIT. 

5 (a) EXTENSION OF PERIOD DURING WHICH RE6 FINED COAL CAN BE PRODUCED.—Section 45(e)(8) of 

7 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding 

8 at the end the following new subparagraph: 

9 ‘‘(E) EXTENSION OF CREDIT PERIOD FOR

10 CERTAIN REFINED COAL FACILITIES.—In the 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2373 IS

1 case of a refined coal production facility which 

2 does not produce steel industry fuel and which 

3 is placed in service before January 1, 2012, 

4 clauses (i) and (ii)(II) of subparagraph (A) 

5 shall each be applied by substituting ‘20-year 

6 period’ for ‘10-year period’.’’. 

7 (b) EXTENSION OF PERIOD DURING WHICH RE8 FINED COAL FACILITIES CAN BE QUALIFIED.—Subpara9 graph (B) of section 45(d)(8) of the Internal Revenue 

10 Code of 1986 is amended— 

11 (1) by striking ‘‘placed in service after’’ and in12 serting ‘‘placed in service— 

13 ‘‘(i) after’’; 

14 (2) by striking the period at the end and insert15 ing ‘‘, or’’; and 

16 (3) by adding at the end the following new 

17 clause: 

18 ‘‘(ii) after December 31, 2017, and 

19 before January 1, 2021.’’. 

20 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

21 this section shall apply to coal produced and sold after 

22 the date of the enactment of this Act, in taxable years 

23 ending after date. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
----

| 1. | I      have reviewed this Form 10-K/A of Nature Vision, 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/   Robert P.      King |
|--------|------------------------------------------|
|   |                                     |
|   | Robert      P. King                      |
|   | Chief      Financial Officer             |

----
#### SALES v. DARDEN.

No. 3274.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

Dec. 30, 1937.

C. A. Miles, Jr., of Liberty, for appellant.

Pitts & Liles, of Conroe, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The record in this case is before us without briefs; on this statement it is the practice of this court to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, Shoemaker v. Tedford, Tex.Civ.App., 74 S.W.2d 707, but appellee has filed a motion, asking that the judgment of the lower court be affirmed, which forces us to search the record for fundamental error, Brown v. Spector, Tex.Civ.App., 70 S.W.2d 478. On the face of the record, it appears -that the appeal was prosecuted from a default judgment in favor of appellee against appellant, rendered on a petition wherein appellee prayed for judgment for the sum of $317, the balance due on an account for attorney’s fees, and for $50 which he alleged he had agreed to pay his attorneys to file and prosecute this suit for him. The record negatives an obligation on the part of appellant to pay an attorney’s fee for the prosecution of this suit. The judgment'for attorney’s fees in the sum of $50 is fundamentally erroneous. Houston Production Co. v. Taylor, Tex.Civ.App., 33 S.W.2d 202.

The judgment of the lower court is reformed by eliminating therefrom recovery for $50 as attorney’s fees, and, as reformed, it is affirmed.
() () () () 

# \sgBiotoxtech 

### FINALREPORT

Biotoxtech Co.,Ltd. OchangScientificIndustrialComplex, 686-2Yangcheong-ri, Ochang-eup, Cheongwon-gun, Chungcheongbuk-do, 363-883, Korea

- 1/52-

### 0

0 () () 

### 0 ()

() ()

- 2/52-

### 0

0
0 

### 0 () 

### 0 0 0 

### 0

- 3/52-0



### 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

### 0 

### 0 -4/52-0 

### 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

### 0

- 5/52-0 0 

### 0 0 0 0 

### 0
0 0

- 6/52-

### 0 0 () 

### 0 0 0



### 0 

### 0

- 7/52-0 

### 0 0 0 

### 0 0



### 0

- 8/52-

### 0 

### 0 0 0 

### 0 0 0


### 0 

### 0

- 9/52-

### 0 0 

### 0
0 0

0

- 10/52-

### 0 0 

### 0 () 

### 0 0 0 0 0 

### 0

- 11/52-0 

### 0 

### 0 0 

### 0 0



### 0

- 12/52-

### 0

0 

### 0 0



### 0

- 13/52-0

() 

### 0 0



### 0 

### 0

- 14/52-

### 0 

### 0 0 0 

### 0 0 0

0

- 15/52-() 0 () () () () ()

()

- 16/52-0 

### 0 0 0 0 0 

### 0 0 0 0 -17/52-

### 0 0 0 0 0 

### 0 0 0 0 

### 0

- 18/52-

### 0 0 0 () 

### 0 0 0 

### 0 0 

### 0

- 19/52-0 

### 0 

### 0 0 0 

### 0 0 0


### 0

- 20/52-0 0 

### 0 

### 0 0 0 0 0 0 

### 0

- 21/52-

### 0 0 0 () 

### 0 0 0 

### 0
0

- 22/52-() () () () () 

### 0 () () () 

### 0

- 23/52-

### 0 () () () 

### 0 0 () 

### 0 () 0

- 24/52-

### 0 0 () 

### TABLES 0 0

() 

### 0 () 

### 0

- 25/52-0 () ()

()

- 26/52-0 () 

### 0 0 () 

### 0
0 0 0

- 27/52-

### 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 

### 0

- 28/52-

### 0 0 

### 0 0 ()



### 0 0

- 29/52-0 

### 0 0 

### APPENDICES 0 0 0 0 0 

### 0

- 30/52-

### 0 0 0 0 

### 0 0 0 0 0 

### 0 AppendixI.Protocol 

# ·.,gBiotoxtech 

### PROTOCOL

Biotoxtech Co., Ltd. Ochang ScientificIndustrial Complex, 686-2 Yangcheong-ri, Ochang-eup, Cheongwon-gun,Chungcheongbuk-do, 363-883, Korea

- IllS- -31/52-0 () 

### 0 0 

### 0 0 0
0

- 2118- 

### 0

- 32/52-0 0 0 0 

### 0

0 0

- 3/18- 

### 0

- 33/52-

### 0 0 

### 0
0 0 0

0 -4/18- 

### 0

- 34/52-

### 0 0 

### 0 () 

### 0 0 0



### 0

- 35/52-0 0 

### 0
0

-6/18- 0

- 36/52-

### 0
0 0 0 ()



### 0 0

- 37/52-

### 0

0 0 

### 0 0 

### 0

0

- 8/18- 

### 0

- 38/52-

### 0 () 0 () 

### 0
0
()

- 9/18- 0

- 39/52-

### 0

() () () ()

()

- 10/18- 

### 0

- 40/52-()

() () 0 () () ()

- 11118- () -41/52-0



### 0 () 

### 0 0 

### 0

0

- 42/52-0



### 0 

### 0 0 0 0 0
0 

### 0 -43/52-

### 0

() 

### 0 0 0 

### 0 

### 0 0 0 -14/18- 

### 0 -44/52-0

0 

### 0 

### 0 0 

### 0 0
0 -15/18- 

### 0

- 45/52-

### 0

0 

### 0 0 0 0

0 -16/18- 

### 0

- 46/52-

### 0

0 0 

### 0 0 

### 0 0 0 

### 0**~17/18-** 

### 0 -47/52-()



### 0 

### 0 () 0 () 

### 0 0 0
- 18/18- 

### 0

- 48/52-

### 0

0 

### 0 

### 0 0 0

0 

### 0

- 49/52-

### 0

0 0 () 

### 0 0

0 -50/52-

### 0

0 0 

### 0 0 0 0
0 

### 0 -51/52-0 () 0 () 

### 0 0

0

- 52152-
COLONIAL REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

                 EXHIBIT 12 - Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

         CRLP's  ratio of earnings to fixed  charges for the three  months ended
March 31, 2001 and 2000, was 1.53 and 1.65, respectively.

         The ratios of  earnings  to fixed  charges  were  computed  by dividing
earnings by fixed charges.  For this purpose,  earnings consist of income (loss)
before gains from sales of property and extraordinary  items (excluding interest
costs capitalized) plus fixed charges. Fixed charges consist of interest expense
(including  interest costs  capitalized)  and the  amortization of debt issuance
costs.
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-1310

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Altedias Maurice Campbell lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern

____________ Submitted: November 29, 2021 Filed: December 2, 2021 [Unpublished]

____________ Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Altedias Campbell appeals after the district court 1 denied his motion seeking a sentence reduction under the First Step Act. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief challenging the denial.

1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court correctly found that

Campbell was ineligible for relief under the First Step Act. See Terry v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1858, 1863-64 (2021) (because Fair Sentencing Act did not modify statutory penalties for § 841(b)(1)(C), a conviction under that section is not a covered offense for purposes of the First Step Act); United States v. McDonald, 944 F.3d 769, 771 (8th Cir. 2019) (defendant’s eligibility for reduced sentence under First Step Act is reviewed de novo). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel permission to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
i.q


### IN THE UNITED STATES 

### BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR 

### THE SOUTHERN 

### DISTRICT OF

### TEXAS



### MCALLEN DI\ASION ENTERED 02n2t2015 

### IN RE: JAMES 

### HOWARD MAPLES; fdba 

### GLOBAL TOURS 

### & CHARTERS, et

### al Debtor(s)


### JAMES 

### HOWARD hIAPLF.S, et

### al PIaintiff(s) 

## vs. JOHNITIY 

### PARTAIN, et

### al Defendant(s) CASE 

### NO: 05-70128


### CHAPTER 11 $ $ $ $ $


### s $ $ 

# $ ADVf,RSARY NO. 0s-7009 $ $ s 

### ORI}ER REOPENING ADYERSARY PROCEEDING 

## 1, This adversary proceeding is reopened

### for the purpose 

### of enforcing the Court's judgment and orders. 

## 2. The Estate

### of James Maples is authorized 

### to

### file a

### motion seeking 

### to hold Johnny Partain in 

### civil contempt. 

## 3. 

# If the Estate

### files such 

### a motion 

### prior

## to February 

### 18, 2015, 

### the motion must be calendared 

### for a hearing at the 

### United States Courthouse 

### in McAllen, Texas at 9:00 a.m. 

### onMarch 

### 24,2015. 

## 4. The motion, and a notice 

### of the 

### March Z4thheaingo must be served by the Maples Estate on 

### Mr. Partain.

### A certificate 

### of service must befiled. 

## 5. Mr. Partain may 

### fite an answer

### to any 

### motion 

### for contempt, 

### with the answer 

### to be

### filed not later thanT days before the hearing. The burden of proof at the hearing 

### willbe on the Maples Estate. 

### Exhibit and witness lists must be

### filed not later than 

### March 20,2014at noon, 

### with service onthe opposing partyto be done by email or hand delivery by that deadline. SIGNED 

### Februarv 1

## l. 2015. 6.
7.



### UNITED STATES 

### BANKRTIPTCY JUDGE 

# tl1

54444023104012 

# EXHIBIT B
#### R. L. FRANCE v. STATE.

No. 14392.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 6, 1931.

Rehearing Denied June 3, 1931.

Hughes *&*Monroe, of Dallas, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for permitting a gaming device to remain in a building in possession of appellant to be used for gaming purposes; punishment, thirty days in the county jail.

We find in this record no statement of facts or bills of exception. By the terms of article 630 of our Penal Code, it is provided that, if any person shall knowingly permit any gaming device to remain in his possession or on premises under his control to be used for gaming purposes, -he shall be imprisoned in jail not less than thirty days nor more than one'year. The information in this case sufficiently charges the offense, and is followed by the judgment.

No error appearing, the judgment will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

MORROW, P. J.

The procedure in the present appeal is identical with that related in the case of Abraham v. State (Tex. Or. App.). 39 S.W.(2d) 42. Upon the authority of the case mentioned, the motion for rehearing is overruled.