alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 12.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Bernard Charlès, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Dassault Systèmes; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The company’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the company and have:
 a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  b. [omitted pursuant to the guidance of Release No. 33-8238 (June 5, 2003)]  c. evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  d. disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The company’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and theaudit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: June 28, 2005         By:  /s/   Bernard Charlès   Name:  Bernard Charlès    Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 23.1


               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference in the  Registration  Statements
(Form S-8 Nos.  333-35605,  33-66381,  and 333-47466)  pertaining to: (1) the FM
Precision Golf Corp. 1997 Stock Option Plan;  Royal Grip, Inc. 1993 Stock Option
Plan,  Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan and Non-Employee Director Option
Plan and Options  issued  pursuant to individual  contracts  with  employees and
consultants  of Royal Grip,  Inc.,  (2) the Royal  Precision,  Inc. Stock Option
Plan,  and (3) the Royal  Precision,  Inc. 1997 Stock Option Plan, of our report
dated August 16, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Royal Precision, Inc. and subsidiaries included in the Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended May 31, 2002.

                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Hartford, Connecticut
August 20, 2002
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Food for Health of People and the Environment Lab: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Beltsville, Maryland (BHNRC) Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center Food for Health of People and the Environment Lab Research





- ARS National Programs
- Search for a scientific manuscript
- Search for a research project
- ARS Software
- Programs and Projects
- Collaborations
- Subjects of Investigation
- Publications

Collaborations The Food for Health of People and the Environment Lab has a long and productive history of collaborative research involving stakeholders.  Current collaborators and projects:  USDA FoodData Central Integration of the Child Nutrition Database  National Academy of Sciences Food and Nutrition Board Food Forum  Glutathione, Mono- and Di-saccharides, Oligosaccharides in Foods  Modernization of the Child Nutrition Database (CNDB) and Integration with USDA FoodData Central Food Buying Guide (FBG) for Child Nutrition Programs: Food Yield Studies and Food Component Analyses, Phase II


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

February 1, 2012 

p0125 

Order 

 

February 1, 2012 

143778 

LINDA M. SHEPPARD, 

 Claimant-Appellant, 

v SC: 143778 

 COA: 300681 

Washtenaw CC: 10-000383-AE 

MEIJER GREAT LAKES LIMITED, 

Employer-Appellee, 

and 

STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPARTMENT OF 

ENERGY, LABOR & ECONOMIC GROWTH, 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AGENCY, 

 Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 12, 2011 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for 

consideration as on leave granted.
Exhibit












May 21, 2020
Ryman Hospitality Properties, Inc.
One Gaylord Drive
Nashville, Tennessee 37214


VIA EMAIL


Stratus Block 21, L.L.C.
212 Lavaca Street
Suite 300
Austin, Texas 78701
Attn:  William H. Armstrong, III


Re:    Agreement of Sale and Purchase (the “PSA”) dated December 9, 2019 between 
Stratus Block 21, L.L.C., as “Seller” (herein so called), and Ryman Hospitality                   Properties, Inc. (“RHPI”), as purchaser, regarding Block 21 Austin, Texas; and               Membership Interest Purchase Agreement dated December 9, 2019, between                                   Stratus Block 21 Investments, L.P. (“Equity Seller”), as seller, and RHPI,                                                               as purchaser, with respect to Block 21 Service Company LLC (collectively, with the                    PSA, the “Contracts”)


Gentlemen:


RHPI is not prepared to proceed with the transactions contemplated by the Contracts.  By                             copy, the Title Company (as defined in the PSA) is authorized to release the Earnest Money (as                             defined in the PSA) to Seller, and Seller is authorized to receive the Earnest Money, in full and                                         final settlement and satisfaction of all claims by Seller and Equity Seller, and liabilities of                                    Purchaser, under and pursuant to the Contracts (other than the Post Termination Obligations (as                          defined in the PSA)), if any, and as the sole and exclusive remedy of Seller and Equity Seller under                               and pursuant to the Contracts in connection with RHPI’s failure to proceed to closing under the                    Contracts, other than the Post Termination Obligations, if any.  Accordingly, Seller, Equity Seller,                               and RHPI agree that the PSA and the MIPA are hereby terminated.  Upon the disbursement of Earnest        Money to Seller, the Title Company is hereby released from any further obligations and/or liabilities                           by virtue of having acted as escrow agent and closing agent under the PSA.


Very truly yours,


RYMAN HOSPITALITY PROPERTIES, INC.






By:   /s/ Scott Lynn                                           
Name:   Scott Lynn                                           
Title:   EVP and General Counsel                     



















AGREED AND ACCEPTED TO BY:


STRATUS BLOCK 21, L.L.C.,
a Delaware limited liability company
		
	By:
	STRATUS BLOCK 21 MANAGER, L.L.C.,


a Texas limited liability company,
its Manager


By: /s/ Erin D. Pickens                                      
		
	Name:
	Erin D. Pickens


		
	Title:
	Senior Vice President




STRATUS BLOCK 21 INVESTMENTS, L.P.,
a Texas limited partnership
		
	By:
	STRATUS BLOCK 21 INVESTMENTS GP, L.L.C.,


a Texas limited liability company,
its General Partner


By: /s/ Erin D. Pickens                                       
		
	Name:
	Erin D. Pickens


		
	Title:
	Senior Vice President




cc:    Kenneth Jones (via email)
Amy Fisher (via email)
# C_2009311EN.01001201.xml

| 19.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/12

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5643 — Arcelormittal/Miglani/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 311/02

On 30 November 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. 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/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5643. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5643. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
# C_2009245EN.01001401.xml

| 13.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/14

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5594 — TNT Post Holding Deutschland/Georg von Holtzbrinck/JVS)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 245/04

On 28 September 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in German 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/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5594. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5594. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Monitoring for humpback chub (G

above Chute Falls, Little Colora

Pam Sponholtz, Dennis Stone, Josh 

Arizona Fishery Resources Offic
Chute Falls Project

•

December 2002 Biological Opinion “to increase 

survival from floods, reduce predation...”

• Up to 300 fish

•

November 2004 Biological Opinion “increase 

survival from high mortality area to good nursery area”

• Up to 600 fish
Capture Site
Objectives

• 1) Determine if transplanted humpback 

survive and remain above Chute Falls

• 2) Determine if humpback chub will grow 

Chute Falls 

• 3) Determine if any transplanted YOY h

chub will recruit to adulthood above Chu

• 4) Determine if a humpback chub spawn

population will develop above Chute Fa
Translocations

•

August 2003 and 2004

•

Collect 50-100mm HBC near 

confluence

• Implanted with visible elastomer tags•

Released 582 HBC above Chute Falls
2003 Monitorin

•

November 2003

•

42 captured HBC were PIT tagged and 

•

9 HBC had no VIE tag
2004 Monitoring

36 HBC were captured in May 

• 18 recaptures were from November 

2003 monitoring

• 17 were new captures• 78% retention of yellow VIE tags

73 HBC were captured in November

• 27 recaptures were from 2003 

translocation

• 46 were new captures with a pink VIE 

tag

• 95% retention in pink VIE tags
2005 Monitoring

• 48 HBC were captured

• 20 recaptures were from 2003 

translocation

• 28 were new captures with a pink VIE 

tag

•

Several fish had color and were ripe

Distrib
2003 Translocation

Released Nov2003

May 2004 Nov 2004 

406080

100120140160180200220240260

Mean Length (±SE)

August 2003
2004 Translocation

August 2004

Released Nov 2004 May 2

Mean Length (±SE)

50

100150200250
ReleasedIst monitoring2nd monitoring3rd monitoring4th 

Mean Length (±SE)

406080

100120140160180200220240260

Growth Comparison
Potential Reasons for s

growth....

•

River temperature

• H

y

d

r

olo

g

y

•

Density dependant factors 

•

Food resources

• Individual variability
8/1/03

12/1/03

4/1/04

8/1/04

LCR Discharge (M3/s) & Temp. (oC)

0

50

100150

2003 Trans 2004 Tr

Nov 2003 Nov 2
Recon 2003 Nov 2003 May 2004 Nov 2004 

Mean Catch/Net (+/- 2SE)

0

100200300400500

SPD

HBC

SPD and HBC Catch Rate
Growth Rates

HBC 11-21

/C No 6.01-10.4mm/m

0.83mm/monthJuly-July

BTC 0-20 

/C No

Species Temp Food Growth rat

4.12mm/monthSept-April

HBC 8-24

/C No

6.88mm/monthJan-Sept

HBC 24

/C Yes
Benefits of Chute Falls 

• Increased abundance of 

HBC

•

2yr old fish >200mm

•

Reduced mortality of YOY 

chubs

• Increased demographic 

range by 4km

•

Better understanding of life 

history
Recommendations

• Continue with translocation in 2005• Initiate population estimates in Sprin• Begin F1 genetics monitoring• Develop a management plan that d

future action
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v *602James Minor, Appellant.

"Although the trial court was remiss in failing to instruct the jury that prior inconsistent statements are not affirmative proof, defendant failed to request curative instructions or otherwise alert the court to the deficiency so as to afford an opportunity to correct the error. Consequently, any objection must be deemed waived” *(People v Wolcott,*111 AD2d 513, 515). The alleged errors in the jury charge have not been preserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]), and, in any case, are meritless.

The sentence imposed was appropriate. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Eiber, JJ., concur.
Technical Work Group Meeting 

Final Agenda Jan. 21, 2011 

Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program 

Technical Work Group 

Arizona Department of Water Resources 

3550 N. Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 

Verde Conference Room 

Thursday 

January 20, 2011

Time TOPIC PERSON TAB 

8:15 a.m. 

Welcome and Administrative 

1. Introductions and Determination of Quorum (16) 

2. Approval of November 15-16, 2010 Meeting Minutes 

3. Review of Action Items 

4. Old Business 

 Ad hoc group updates 

5. New Business 

Shane Capron 

8:55 a.m. GCMRC Updates: 

 HFE Synthesis 

Ted Melis 

9:40 a.m. 

BR Updates: 

 High Flow Experiment Protocol EA 

 Non-native Fish Control EA 

 2011 Hydrology 

 PA and Related Cultural Issues Update 

Glen Knowles 

11 a.m. B R E A K 

11:10 a.m. 

Revision of 2011 Budget and Workplan: 

 Implications of HFE EA and NNF Control EA 

 Develop Initial Budget Concerns/Priorities 

 Direction to BAHG 

Shane Capron 

Glen Knowles 

John Hamill 

12 noon L U N C H 

1 p.m. Hydrograph development for 2012 Shane Capron 

Glen Knowles 

1:10 

General Core Monitoring Plan TWG Review 

Shane Capron 

Helen Fairley 

Ad hoc group 

2:15 p.m. Socio-economics Ad Hoc Group Update Shane Capron 

Ad hoc group 

2:45 p.m. Public Comment, Wrap-up and Adjourn Shane Capron
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Jerry DENTON, Defendant.

No. CR-2-82-15.

United States District Court, E. D. Tennessee, Northeastern Division.

March 31, 1982.

*17Guy W. Blackwell, Asst. U. S. Atty., Greeneville, Tenn., for plaintiff.

Douglas R. Beier, Morristown, Tenn., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

NEESE, District Judge.

> The defendant moved the Court pretrial * * * in limine for an Order prohibiting the Government and its witnesses from introducing evidence and testimony about alleged conversations had between the Defendant and government agent, Patrick Henry, concerning “hot guns, jewelry or stolen guns” and a “book joint” not the subject of this case. * * *

Such motion hereby is

DENIED, but without prejudice to the making by the defendant of an objection at trial to the introduction of any such evidence when, and if, the prosecution seeks to offer it.

In this Circuit, orders in limine are not favored, the better practice being “ * * * to deal with questions of admissibility of evidence as they arise [at trial]. * * ” *Sperberg v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.,*C.A. 6th (1975), 519 F.2d 708, 712[1]. At this time, the Court has no way of knowing (1) whether any or all of the aforementioned evidence will be offered at trial, (2) if so, for what purpose or purposes, (3) whether, if offered, some or all of such evidence might be admissible for one or more purposes, and (4) if admissible, whether its probative value might be outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

There are ample safeguards for determining the admissibility or inadmissibility of proffered evidence at trial outside the hearing of the jury. *See*Rules 103(c), 104(c), Federal Rules of Evidence. The Court has no reason to believe the prosecuting attorney^) would put prejudicial evidence of questionable admissibility before the jury without first giving the Court a chance to rule thereon.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 Annual Report of Intelligroup, Inc, (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Vikram Gulati, Chief Executive 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 and to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

(1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d);
         and

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

DATE: March 31, 2006                    By: /s/ Vikram Gulati
                                               ------------------------
                                               Vikram Gulati
                                               Chief Executive Officer