alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 4(m)


                  English Summary of Lease for Fab L3

Date:
-----
January 1, 2002.

Parties:
--------
SCIENCE-BASED INDUSTRIAL PARK ADMINISTRATION (the "Lessor").
AU Optronics Corp. (the "Lessee").

Leased Premises:
----------------
The government-owned land containing 51,800 square meters, located on the land
Nos. 114-4, Gin-Shan Section of Science-Based Industrial Park, Hsin-Chu.

Leased Term:
------------
Commencing September 1, 2001 and expiring on December 31, 2020.

Rental:
-------
The rental shall be forty-seven New Taiwan Dollars and thirty cents (NT$47.3)
per square meter per month.

The total amount of monthly rental shall be two million four hundred fifty
thousand one hundred forty New Taiwan Dollars (NT$2,450,140).

During the terms of the Lease, should the government adjust the land price,
Lessee agrees to adjust the rental as well. The rental which has been paid
shall be increased or returned.

Termination by Lessor
---------------------
Lessee may terminate the Lease at any time if any of the following shall
happen:
a)   Lessee has lost its qualifications to operate business or provide services
     in the Science-Based Industrial Park or is ordered by Lessee to move out
     from the Park;
b)   Lessee has violated certain provisions herein and fails to make
     improvements within the period specified in the written notice of Lessee;
c)   Lessee fails to pay the rental for two years after it has become due and
     payable;
d)   Lessee fails to make application regarding construction works within three
     months from the date hereof or fails to make improvements or corrections
     in case of rejected application;
e)   Lessee fails to complete construction works within the period specified
     herein or the extended period as agreed by Lessee; or f) Lessee violates
     provisions herein regarding the proper use of the leased land.

Miscellaneous
-------------


                                       3
**EXHIBIT 13.1**

**Certification**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002**

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

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Copa Holdings, S.A. (the “ Company “), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that: 

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2012 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Dated: April 29, 2013 

 

(Section 906 CEO Certification)
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2019217EN.01002201.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 28.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/22 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9412 — EQT Fund Management/Nestlé Skin Health)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 217/11)

1.

On 20 June 2019, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2019217EN.01002201-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | EQT VIII SCSp (‘EQT’ Luxembourg), controlled by the EQT group of private equity funds, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Nestlé Skin Health S.A. (‘NSH’ Switzerland), |

EQT acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of NSH.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | EQT is a financial investor that seeks to make investments primarily in Northern Europe, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | NSH offers a range of medical and consumer skin health solutions through three business units: Aesthetics, Prescription, and Consumer. |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2019217EN.01002201-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

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

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.9412 — EQT Fund Management/Nestlé Skin Health

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

| |
| --- |
| Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu |
| Fax +32 22964301 |
| Postal address: |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2019217EN.01002201-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2019217EN.01002201-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
EXHIBIT 32.1 / 32.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   In connection with the Transition Report of Deltron, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Henry Larrucea, Principal Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the Company.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.   /s/ Henry Larrucea Name: Henry Larrucea Title: Principal Executive and Financial Officer   Date: January 13, 2011
EXHIBIT 10a



 



Exhibit 10 (a)


Consent of KPMG Accountants N.V.







To the Supervisory Board and Board of Management of Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.



We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-8 (No. 33-65972,
No. 33-80027, No. 333-91287, No. 333-70215, No. 333-91289, No. 333-39204, No. 333-75542, No.
333-87852 and No. 333-104104) and in the registration statement on Form F-3 (No. 333-4582 and No.
333-90686) of Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. of our report dated February 7, 2003, relating to
the consolidated balance sheets of Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in
stockholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
2002, included in the December 31, 2002 annual report on Form 20-F of Koninklijke Philips Electronics
N.V.



	 	 	 
	Eindhoven, The Netherlands	 	 
	 	 	 
	June 30, 2003	 	
/s/ KPMG Accountants N.V.

KPMG ACCOUNTANTS N.V.



8
Well Files Submitted to EPA Oil and Gas Companies

When this document is completed, the final index will be uploaded to the same location and will contain 

the following data:

 Well operator;

 Well name;

 Document name;

 Docket document number.

Docket ORD-2010-0674.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

RONALD JAY MILLER,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-30225

D.C. No. 6:13-cr-00002-DLC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 7, 2014** 

Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. 

Ronald Jay Miller appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for accessing

with intent to view child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

APR 11 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Miller contends that the district court erred by concluding that his prior

conviction for sexual assault, in violation of Mont. Code Ann. § 45-5-502, was an

offense “relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual

conduct involving a minor or ward,” triggering a 10-year statutory mandatory

minimum sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(2). This contention is foreclosed

by United States v. Sinerius, 504 F.3d 737, 744 (9th Cir. 2007). We reject Miller’s

argument that the rule of lenity, as recently described by the Supreme Court,

requires us to overrule Sinerius. See Barber v. Thomas, 560 U.S. 474, 488 (2010)

(rule of lenity “only applies if, after considering text, structure, history, and

purpose, there remains a grievous ambiguity or uncertainty in the statute”) (internal

quotations omitted); see also Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 892-93 (9th Cir.

2003) (en banc) (three-judge panel is bound by circuit precedent unless that

precedent is “clearly irreconcilable” with intervening higher authority). 

Further, contrary to Miller’s contention, the existence of a prior conviction is

a sentencing factor, not an element of the crime; therefore, it need not be charged

in the indictment or found by the jury. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

523 U.S. 224, 235, 241 (1998); see also Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151,

2160 n.1 (2013) (declining to revisit Almendarez-Torres).

AFFIRMED.

2 13-30225
#### State v. Todd

105,744

06/14/13

Denied.

Unpublished
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF
 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
   In connection with this Transitional Yearly Report of Confederate Motors, Inc. (fka French Peak Resources, Inc.)  (the “Company”) on the Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, H. Matthew Chambers, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  1.
Such Yearly Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2009, 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 such Yearly Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2009, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Confederate Motors, Inc.
  Date: May 17, 2010
   By: /s/  H. Matthew Chambers
 H. Matthew Chambers
 Chief Executive Officer
# Fourth Court of Appeals
**San Antonio, Texas**

March 13, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00005

- CV

IN RE ESTATE OF JACK HIROMI IKENAGA, SR., Deceased,

From the Probate Court No 1, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2011

- PC

- 4330 Honorable Polly Jackson Spencer, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

On March 5, 2015, we ordered Appellant to provide written proof to this court by March 16, 2015 , that either (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the clerk’s fee, or (2) Appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the clerk’s fee.

On March 9, 2015, Appellant provided written proof to this court that the clerk’ s record fee has been paid; our March 5, 2015 clerk’s record order is satisfied.

We ORDER the district clerk to file the clerk’s record with this court by April 2, 2015. No further extensions of time to file the clerk’s record will be granted.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 13th day of March, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
#### State v. Prator

111,103

09/23/2015

Denied

Unpublished
|                                                                                              
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                              
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                      
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                
|View History:                                                                                 
|                                                                                              
|Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers in Tennessee (Including Vehicle Fuel)  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                              
|                                                                                              
|Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers in Tennessee (Including Vehicle Fuel)  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                              

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1  | Year-2  | Year-3  | Year-4  | Year-5  | Year-6  | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | -------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |         |         |         |         |         |         |         | 259,790 | 262,598 | 263,607
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 256,821 | 242,184 | 243,955 | 244,484 | 220,602 | 221,088 | 212,864 | 211,020 | 219,535 | 204,990
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 247,000 | 252,200 | 266,762 | 272,304 | 298,014 | 305,050 | 319,675 | 316,119 | 383,698 | 393,023
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 369,385 | 382,800 | 409,318 | NA      |         |         |         |         |         |        
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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.

November 1, 2013 

# Order

Clerk November 1, 2013

145594 ( 3 1 )

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 145594

v COA: 307728

Wayne CC: 1995

- 003838

- FH

WILLIAM CRAIG GARRETT,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice , the motion of the Innocence Network to file an

amicus curiae brief in support of defendant

- appellant is GRANTED. The amicus brief

submitted on October 30, 2013, is accepted for filing

.
EMPLOYMENT IMPACT ANALYSIS

James E. McMahon

(JEMcMahon@LBL.gov)

Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

U.S. DOE Workshop on Standards

for Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners and

Heat Pumps

September 12, 2001

EE-RM-STD-01-375 COMMENT 02NN

· ... ' ~ :. _ if·~· 

EMPLOYMENT IMPACT ANALYSIS 

James E. McMahon 

(JEMcMahon@LBL.gov) 

Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

u.s. DOE Workshop on Standards 

for Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners and 

Heat Pumps 

September 12,2001 
Employment Impact Analysis:

. Both Direct and Indirect Employment

A• IImpacts Occur

Direct employment impacts are estimated in

the manufacturer impact analysis

Indirect employment impacts occur from

- Shifting consumer expenditures among goods

(substitution effect)

- Changing equipment and energy costs (income

effect)

111.I.I

EE-RM-STD-01-375 COMMENT 02NN

. , 

Employment Impact Analysis: 

Both Direct and Indirect Employment 

Impacts Occur ??~t\:!r.: . .:'!~'$~:~.:b}"'~ ">':~:'::', ;' : .. :-":" 

• Direct employment impacts are estimated in 

the manufacturer impact analysis 

• Indirect employment impacts occur from 

- Shifting consumer expenditures among goods 

(substitution effect) 

- Changing equipment and energy costs (income 

effect) 

IlLLl 
Employment Impact Analysis:

DOE Requests Input from Stakeholders

What methods should be used to estimate

employment impacts?

111.1.2

EE-RM-STD-01-375 COMMENT 02NN

. I 

Employment Impact Analysis: 

"1." . DOE Requests Input from Stakeholders 

• What methods should be used to estimate 

employment impacts? 

IILl.2
Exhibit 32

The following statement is being made to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for the purposes of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), which carries with it certain criminal penalties in the event
of a knowing or willful misrepresentation.

Securities and Exchange Commission

450 Fifth Street NW

Washington, D.C. 20549



| | Re: | Perrigo Company
| | --- | ---------------

Ladies and Gentlemen:

In accordance with the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 USC 1350), each of the undersigned hereby certifies that:



| | (i) | this Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Perrigo Company.
| | ---- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated as of this 3rd day of February, 2009.



|                                                |  |  |  |                                                     
|----------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|                                                |  | 
|/s/ Joseph C. Papa                              |  |  |  | /s/ Judy L. Brown                                   
|Joseph C. Papa                                  |  |  |  | Judy L. Brown                                       
|Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 15, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 2169]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-943]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Health Resources and Services Administration


Program Announcement for Grant Programs Administered by the 
Division of Associated, Dental and Public Health Professions, Bureau of 
Health Professions for Fiscal Year 1997

Correction

    In notice document 96-28112 appearing on page 56550 on the issue of 
Friday, November 1, 1996 make the following correction:
    On page 56550, in the table on the fourth line titled ``Public 
Health Special Projects'' in the fourth column under the column heading 
``Available for competing awards'', the amount should read 
``$2,500,000''.

    Dated: January 7, 1997.
Ciro V. Sumaya,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-943 Filed 1-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-15-P
No. 12-6027.

#### Sanders *v.*Illinois.

App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.
# C_2019431EN.01000101.xml

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 431/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9589 — Fedrigoni/Ritrama Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 431/01)

On 16 December 2019, 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 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 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 32019M9589. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9589. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
#### Derrick Latray ADAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D16-3689

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed July 18, 2017

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Mark Borello, Judge.

AFFIRMED.