alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                          20,534
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 1,250
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          71,287
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            70,665
<LOANS>                                        557,052
<ALLOWANCE>                                      9,673
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 669,534
<DEPOSITS>                                     527,039
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,632
<LONG-TERM>                                     54,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        53,309
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,558
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 669,534
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 29,712
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,492
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                33,204
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              14,843
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,327
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           16,877
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,821
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  7,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,421
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       7,421
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,609
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.68
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.27
<LOANS-NON>                                      5,146
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 5,974
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 8,105
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,290
<RECOVERIES>                                        37
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                9,673
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             9,673
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 2.1

English Translation

WKN 716460/ISIN DE0007164600

1,228,504,232 No-Par Value Shares

SAP SE

Walldorf

Global Share Certificate

for

1,228,504,232 Ordinary Bearer Shares with No-Par Value

Share Numbers: No. 000 000 001 to 1 228 504 232

The holder of this Global Certificate is a shareholder in SAP SE, Walldorf, in accordance with its Articles of Association, holding 1,228,504,232 bearer shares with no-par value therein.

This Global Certificate is exclusively assigned for safe-keeping at Clearstream Banking AG, Frankfurt am Main.

To this Global Certificate a Global Dividend Coupon has been issued.

The shares certified by this Global Certificate are entitled to profit-sharing starting 1stJanuary 2014.

Walldorf, July 2014

SAP SE



|                  |  |                
|----------------- |  | ---------------
|Supervisory Board |  | Executive Board



---

SAP SE

Walldorf

Bearer Global Dividend Coupon

to the

Global Share Certificate

for

1,228,504,232 Ordinary Bearer Shares with No-Par Value

No. 000 000 001 to 1 228 504 232

The holder of this Global Dividend Coupon is entitled to assert the ancillary rights arising from the above-mentioned Global Certificate.

Walldorf, July 2014

SAP SE



|                  |  |                
|----------------- |  | ---------------
|Supervisory Board |  | Executive Board
#### VINES V. THE STATE.

*Murder.*

(Decided July *2,*1907.)

Appeal from Tallapoose Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. S. L. Brewer.

G. A. Sorrell, J. P. Oliver, and Bulger & Rylance, for appellant.

Alexander M. Garber, Attorney General, for the State.

Tyson, C. J.

Reversed and remanded on authority of *Trammell v. The State,*151 Ala. 18; 44 South. 201.

Dowdell, .Anderson and Denson, JJ., concur.
##### 



EXHIBIT 4.23 Supplement to Executive Board Contract Dated March 8, 1996 Dear Mr. Oswald, In relation to your executive board contract dated March 8, 1996 and your reappointment on October
17, 2000, the compensation committee decided on the following supplements to your executive board
contract at its meeting on October 17, 2000: Article 4 Term
Duties at the end of this contract Article 4 (1), paragraph 2 The following provision is added:
Thereafter it will extend by the duration of the reappointment unless terminated by either of the
parties giving not less than nine months written notice to the other before it expires. Article 4 (2) If during the term of this contract Mr. Oswald becomes permanently unable to work, this contract
will end at the end of the quarter in which the permanent inability to work was determined. The following sentence is added:However, compensation payments will end not before expiry of the
12-month period starting on the day on which the permanent inability to work was determined. For the purposes of this contract, a permanent inability to work would be if Mr. Oswald were unable
to perform his work during a period of more than oneyear and it were not expected that he be able
to start work again within the following six months. Article 4 (4) The following provision is added:Provisions governing early dismissal or termination If Mr. Oswald is dismissed from the executive board, this contract is deemed terminated. If this
contract is terminated or his appointment as an executive board member is revoked, SAP can suspend
Mr. Oswald from his duties with immediate effect. If he is not suspended, SAP will continue to pay
his salary (basic annual salary and directors profit-sharing bonus) until the contract expires. If
he is suspended, SAP will only continue to pay his basic annual salary.




---



##### 



-2- Article 7
Retirement and dependents pension plan The following provision is added:
If Mr. Oswald dies, payment of compensation will continue during the three months following his
death. Walldorf, February 12, 2001      /s/ DIETMAR HOPP
    
    /s/ GERHARD OSWALDThe supervisory boardRepresented by its chairperson
    
    Gerhard Oswald
Exhibit 13.2
 CERTIFICATION OF JIM HAGEMANN SNABE, CO-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF SAP AG PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date
March 18, 2011
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Jim Hagemann SnabeName:
    
    Jim Hagemann SnabeTitle:
    
    Co-Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT A
                                                                       ---------


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     I, Robert S. Soloff, the Chief Executive Officer of Sonics & Materials,
Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

           (1) the Amendment No. 1 (on Form 10-KSB/A) to the Annual Report of
           the Company for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the
           Securities and Exchange Commission on October 18, 2002 (the
           "Amendment") 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

           (2) the information contained in the Amendment fairly presents, in
           all material respects, the financial condition and results of
           operations of the Company.

Dated: October 18, 2002

                                          /s/ Robert S. Soloff
                                          -------------------------
                                          Robert S. Soloff
                                          Chief Executive Officer


This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.
#### In the Matter of David Mitchell, Also Known as Harold Jones, Petitioner, v Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, Respondent.

Application for a writ of mandamus dismissed as moot, without costs and without disbursements, and the motion to amend the petition and for an award of costs, disbursements and attorney’s fees denied in its entirety. No opinion. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ross and Rosenberger, JJ.
# C_2019280EN.01004501.xml

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/45

---

Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Allione v Parliament

(Case T-396/19)

(2019/C 280/62)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Emma Allione (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---
<PAGE>

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the May 2, 2001 Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-60004) and the April 4, 2000
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-35450) of PacificHealth
Laboratories, Inc. of our report dated January 29, 2002 included in the annual
report on Form 10-KSB amendment No. 1 for the years ended December 31, 2001
and 2000.




                                            LARSON, ALLEN, WEISHAIR & CO., LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
May 13, 2002
Case: 1:02-cv-00500 Document #: 32 Filed: 02/11/03 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:142
#### Charles Everette HINTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Andrew MURRAY; Christian Hoel; William Robert Bell; John Doe, Judicial Official for North Carolina and Mediator for State of North Carolina; FNU Proctor, Magistrate; FNU Diggs, Magistrate; John Doe, District Court Judge on File Number 11-cr-216164, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-6596.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 28, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 2, 2011.

Charles Everette Hinton, Appellant Pro Se.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charles Everette Hinton appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Hinton v. Murray,*No. 3:11-cv-00198-RJC (W.D.N.C. Apr. 27, 2011). 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_2021349EN.01003201.xml

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — DD v FRA

(Case T-632/19) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Claims for damages - Non-material damage - Implementation of the judgments of the Civil Service Tribunal and of the General Court)

(2021/C 349/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DD (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (represented by: M. O’Flaherty, acting as Agent, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, compensation for the non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant, secondly, annulment of the decision of the Director of the FRA dated 19 November 2018 rejecting his request for compensation and, thirdly, if need be, annulment of the decision of 12 June 2019 rejecting the complaint against the abovementioned decision of 19 November 2018.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders DD to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders DD to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA).

---

(1)  OJ C 406, 2.12.2019.

---
#### G. N. Bird and another *vs.*Nels Norquist and another.

June 11, 1891.

•Justice of Peace — Void Judgment — Insufficient Published Summons. — In an action before a justice, commenced by attachment duly levied on property of the defendant, he being .a non-resident of the state and not found therein, the summons was ordered to be served by publication, but the return-day was less than six days after the expiration of the period of publication, and on that day the justice entered judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant not appearing. *Held,*the judgment was without jurisdiction, and void, and a sale upon execution under it passed no title.

Action brought in the district court for Otter Tail county, to remover possession of certain wheat and oats of the value of $307. Appeal by plaintiffs from ah order of Baxter, J., refusing a new trial .after a dismissal ordered at the trial.

*II. F. Woodard,*for appellants.

*Clapp & Houpt,*for respondents.

Gilfillan, C. J.

The plaintiffs claim title to the personal property, to recover possession of which the action is brought, through a sale to them under an execution issued by a justice of the peace. 'The judgment on which it issued was rendered as follows: The action was commenced by attachment duly levied on the property, but the defendant was not personally summoned. He being a non-resident of the state, and not found, the justice ordered service of the summons by publication, and it was published; but the return-day was less than six days after the expiration of the period for publication. On that day, the defendant not appearing, the justice rendered thé judgment against him.

*319It is elementary that to pass the title to property by sale on execution, the writ must have issued on a valid judgment. The judgment in this instance was void, because the justice had no jurisdiction to render it. There was no personal service of the summons, and no service by publication, such as the statute prescribes. That requires a publication for three weeks, that period to expire at least six days before the return day. Gen. St. 1878, *c.*65, § 102. This publication was not such that the requisite time elapsed between the expiration of the three weeks and the return-day. The appellant claims that the levy of the attachment gave the justice jurisdiction, so far as the property was concerned. According to the statute, (Id. § 103,) the levy of the attachment and making the order for publication gives the justice jurisdiction provisionally for certain purposes, but not for the purpose of trial or judgment.

Order affirmed.
# C_2020423EN.01003501.xml

| 7.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — Broughton v Eurojust

(Case T-87/19) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Deferment of advancement to a higher step for a period of six months - Annulment of reclassification in the higher grade - Ability to work in a third language - Administrative investigation - Duty to act in good faith - Impartiality - Rights of the defence - Equality of arms - Obligation to state reasons - Articles 11 and 12 of the Staff Regulations)

(2020/C 423/51)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Jon Broughton (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: D. Coppens, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) (represented by: J. Jooma and A. Terstegen-Verhaag, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought under Article 270 TFEU seeking, in essence, first, annulment of the decisions of 4 May 2018 by which Eurojust deferred the applicant’s advancement to a higher step for a period of six months, held that French was his third language, annulled his reclassification from grade AD 9 to AD 10, which occurred in 2012, and proceeded to recover the amounts received since that year on account of that reclassification, second, a declaration that French must be considered to be the applicant’s second language and Dutch his third language, third, a declaration that the recovery of the amounts received by the applicant as a result of his reclassification in grade was unlawful and that the amounts recovered by Eurojust must be reimbursed to the applicant and, fourth, a declaration that Eurojust must restore the applicant’s legal position to what it was previously.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Jon Broughton to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Jon Broughton to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust).

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.

---
#### Asad MUSHTAQ, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-60019

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 15, 2009.

*883Lawrence Erik Rushton, Rushton Law Firm, Bellaire, TX, for Petitioner.

Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Anthony W. Norwood, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Sharon A. Hudson, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, Houston, TX, for Respondent.

Before REAVLEY, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Asad Mushtaq, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for a waiver of inadmissibility pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(k). He argues that the BIA erred in holding that his father’s knowledge of Mushtaq’s inadmissibility at the time that Mushtaq entered the United States as a minor is imputed to Mushtaq, thereby disqualifying him from relief under § 1182(k). He also argues that the IJ erred in denying relief under § 1182(k) as a matter of discretion. In *884dismissing Mushtaq’s appeal, the BIA found only that the imputation of Mushtaq’s father’s knowledge to Mushtaq was proper for purposes of § 1182(k), and it did not address the IJ’s alternative, discretion-based denial.

Because this court generally reviews only the BIA’s decision, the issue whether the IJ erred in denying relief as a matter of discretion is not properly before us. *See Mikhael v. INS,*115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir.1997). However, even if Mushtaq were to show that the BIA erred in imputing his father’s knowledge to him, remand to the BIA for a determination of the propriety of the IJ’s discretion-based denial would be necessary before this case could be decided. *See Nakimbugwe v. Gonzales,*475 F.3d 281, 284-85 (5th Cir. 2007). Further, the Government is correct that if the BIA were to affirm the IJ’s discretion-based denial, this court would lack jurisdiction to review that denial pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). *See Ayanbadejo v. Chertoff,*517 F.3d 273, 276-77 (5th Cir.2008) (holding that this court lacks jurisdiction to review denials when the applicable statute specifies, as does § 1182(k), that relief is discretionary). Accordingly, before this court reaches the complex question whether Mushtaq’s father’s knowledge was properly imputed to Mushtaq, judicial economy dictates that we REMAND this case to the BIA for the limited purpose of determining whether the IJ erred in denying relief under § 1182(k) as a matter of discretion.

REMANDED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.