alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-4.1





 Exhibit 4.1 
  





 
 CERTIFICATE NUMBER DATE OF ISSUE ACCOUNT NUMBER T/R. REF. NUMBER OF SHARE(S) XPeng Inc. (A company controlled through weighted voting
rights and incorporated in the Cayman Islands with limited liability) CLASS A ORDINARY SHARE CERTIFICATE HONG KONG SHARE REGISTER THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE UNDERMENTIONED PERSON(S) IS/ARE THE REGISTERED HOLDER(S) OF FULLY PAID CLASS A ORDINARY
SHARE(S) OF NOMINAL VALUE OF US$0.00001 EACH IN THE SHARE CAPITAL OF XPENG INC. (THE “COMPANY”) AS DETAILED BELOW SUBJECT TO THE MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF THE COMPANY. CERTIFICATE NUMBER/ SHAREHOLDER(S): CODE: NUMBER OF
SHARE(S): GIVEN UNDER THE SECURITIES SEAL OF THE COMPANY ON THE DATE OF ISSUE AS STATED ABOVE. DIRECTOR NO TRANSFER OF THE WHOLE OR ANY PORTION OF THE ABOVE SHARE(S) CAN BE REGISTERED UNLESS ACCOMPANIED BY THIS SHARE CERTIFICATE. HONG KONG SHARE
REGISTRAR: TRICOR INVESTOR SERVICES LIMITED, LEVEL 54, HOPEWELL CENTRE, 183 QUEEN’S ROAD EAST, HONG KONG.
# C_2021459EN.01003501.xml

| 12.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 459/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 459/35

---

EUROPEAN AGENCY FOR SAFETY AND HEALTH AT WORK

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2020

(2021/C 459/35)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

https://osha.europa.eu/en/about-eu-osha/what-we-do/how-we-work/finance/finance-and-budget-information

---
Exhibit 4.4


 


TOTALENERGIES CAPITAL


 


TOTALENERGIES SE


 


Officer’s Certificate


 


Pursuant to Section 102 of the Indenture


 


Antoine Larenaudie, duly appointed
Director (Administrateur) of TotalEnergies Capital, a société anonyme duly organized and existing under the
laws of the Republic of France, registered with the Registre du Commerce et des Sociétés of Nanterre under number
428 292 023 (the “Company”), and duly appointed Group Treasurer of TotalEnergies SE, a European company (Societas
Europaea or SE) duly organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of France, registered with the Registre du Commerce
et des Sociétés of Nanterre under number 542 051 180 (the “Guarantor”), hereby makes the following
statements pursuant to Section 102 of the indenture dated October 2, 2009, and amended by the first supplemental indenture dated
October 11, 2018 and by the second supplemental indenture dated July 22, 2020 and as further amended by the third supplemental
indenture dated June 17, 2021, among the Company, the Guarantor and The Bank of New York Mellon, acting through its London Branch,
as trustee (the “Indenture”):


 


(a)          the
undersigned has read the provisions of the Indenture, including without limitation, Section 901(1) setting forth the conditions
relating to the succession of another corporation, including as substitute obligor, to the Company or the Guarantor and the assumption
by such successor of the covenants of the Company or Guarantor in the Indenture and in the Guarantees and in respect of compliance with
which this certificate is being delivered, and the definitions in the Indenture relating thereto;


 


(b)          the
undersigned has examined the resolutions of the Board of Directors of the Company, such other corporate records of the Company and the
Guarantor, and such other documents deemed necessary as a basis for the opinion hereinafter expressed;


 


(c)          in
the opinion of the undersigned, such examination is sufficient to enable it to express an informed opinion as to whether or not the conditions
referred to above have been complied with; and


 


(d)            the
undersigned is of the opinion that such conditions have been complied with.


 


Capitalized terms used herein
and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given to them in the Indenture.


 






     


     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned
has duly executed and delivered this certificate as of the date set forth below.


 


	Dated: June 17, 2021	
    TOTALENERGIES CAPITAL




 


		By:	/s/ ANTOINE
                                            LARENAUDIE
	 	 	Name: Antoine Larenaudie
	 	 	Title:   Director



 


	 	TOTALENERGIES SE



 





		By:	/s/ ANTOINE
                                            LARENAUDIE
	 	 	Name: Antoine Larenaudie
	 	 	Title:   Group Treasurer


 


[Signature Page to Officer’s Certificate under the Indenture]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-2055

In Re: STUART WAYNE TOMPKINS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:08-cv-00322-GCM)

Submitted: January 21, 2009 Decided: February 19, 2009

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stuart Wayne Tompkins, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Stuart Wayne Tompkins, a North Carolina prisoner, petitions for a writ of mandamus. Tompkins asserts that he has had difficulty sending and receiving mail at Mountain View Correctional Institution, and he seeks an order compelling a federal investigation. We deny the petition. A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist.

Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Relief under this writ is available only when there is no other means for obtaining

relief. In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). The party seeking relief carries the heavy burden of showing that he has “no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires” and that his right to such relief is “clear and indisputable.” Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc. , 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980). Tompkins has not made such a showing in this case. Accordingly, we deny the petition. 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.

PETITION DENIED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED INTERIM FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE THREE
MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED INTERIM FINANCIALS STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          14,806
<SECURITIES>                                     9,951
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,789
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,967
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,490
<PP&E>                                          30,254
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,843
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  67,442
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,322
<BONDS>                                             80
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            4,776
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        86,977
<OTHER-SE>                                    (58,567)<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    67,442
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                36,777
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,090
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   279<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   277
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (37)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,929
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,510)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,419
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,419
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14<F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13
<FN>
<F1>(OTHER-SE) - ACCUMULATED DEFICIT
<F2>(OTHER-EXPENSES) - OTHER INCOME, NET OF EXPENSES
<F3>(EPS-PRIMARY) - INCLUDES DIVIDENDS AND ACCRETION ON MANDATORILY REDEEMABLE
PREFERRED STOCK
</FN>


</TABLE>
Exhibit
10.6

    Base
Salaries for Named Executive Officers

    


    As of
January 1, 2010 the following are the base salaries (on an annual basis) of the
named executive officers

    (as
defined in Item 402(a)(3) of Regulation S-K) of Access National
Corporation:

    


    
      
        
          
            
              
                
                  
                    	
                            Michael
      W. Clarke

                          	 	$	315,000	 
	
                              President
      and Chief Executive Officer

                          	 	 	 	 
	 
      	 	 	 	 
	
                            Dean
      Hackemer

                          	 	$	302,000	 
	
                              President
      and Chief Executive Officer, Access National Mortgage
Corp.

                          	 	 	 	 
	 
      	 	 	 	 
	
                            Robert
      C. Shoemaker

                          	 	$	252,000	 
	
                               Executive
      Vice President and Chief Credit Officer

                          	 	 	 	 
	 
      	 	 	 	 
	
                            Charles
      Wimer

                          	 	$	200,000	 
	
                               Executive
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7117

MARION BEASLEY, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

COUNTY OF FORSYTH; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. Russell A. Eliason,

Magistrate Judge. (1:07-cv-00457-NCT)

Submitted: October 31, 2007 Decided: November 21, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marion Beasley, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Marion Beasley, Jr., appeals a magistrate judge’s order

dismissing his complaint without prejudice to his right to refile.

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28

U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949); United

States v. Bryson, 981 F.2d 720, 723 (4th Cir. 1992) (magistrate

judge may hear matters in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) proceedings, but

may not decide them absent explicit consent of the parties). Where

a dispositive matter is referred to the magistrate judge under 28

U.S.C. § 636(b) (2000), parties must have the opportunity to

object, and the district court is required to conduct de novo

review of the portions of the recommendation to which objections

are made. Bryson, 981 F.2d at 723. Because Beasley did not

consent to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge, the magistrate

judge’s order is not a final appealable order. Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

DISMISSED
#### MARSCHALL et al., Appellants, v. EISEN VINEYARD CO., Respondent.

(Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.

May 17, 1894.)

Action by August Marsehall and others against the Eisen Vineyard Company.

Argued before BOOKSTAVER, BISCHOEP, and PRYOR, JJ.

Rose & Putzel, for appellants.,

Douglass & Minton, for respondent.

No opinion. Motion for leave to appeal to the court of appeals denied, with 810 costs. See 28 N. Y. Supp. 62.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

U.S. Coast Guard 

MOTION FOR FURTHER DISCOVERY

CG-5800B (08/14)

Complainant: 

 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

v. 

Respondent:

For Docketing Center Use Only:

Coast Guard Enforcement Activity Number:

Mail FAX Express courier In Person Electronic Delivery

1) [provide circumstances warranting the discovery]; 

Mail FAX Express courier In Person Electronic Delivery

Mail FAX Express courier In Person Electronic Delivery

3) I hereby certify I have served the foregoing documents with the assigned Administrative Law Judge by:

Type or print name Signature Date

Docket Number:

20 -

Respondent motions the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for discovery and, in accordance with 33 C.F.R. § 

20.601(e), provides the following support:

2) [explain the nature of the information sought]; and 

3) [explain the proposed method and scope of discovery along with the time and place discovery will occur]

1) I hereby certify I have served the foregoing documents with the Coast Guard Representative by:

2) I hereby certify I have served the foregoing documents with the ALJ Docketing Center by:

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Type or print name Signature Date

MOTION FOR FURTHER DISCOVERY

Respondent requests if the ALJ determines he or she should grant the Motion for Further Discovery, the ALJ shall issue an 

order in accordance with 33 C.F.R. § 20.601(d), together with the terms on which it will occur.

 Privacy Act Statement 

The legal authority for the collection of information on this form is authorized by 46 U.S.C. Chapter 77 and 33 C.F.R. Part 20. The information provided will be 

used to advocate your position in this administrative proceeding. Unless part of mandatory discovery, submission of the information on this form is voluntary. 

You are solely responsible for the manner in which you want to present your own case. This document will become part of the official record, which can be 

viewed by the public. 33 C.F.R. § 20.903.
#### OSMUN, Respondent, v. TEETER, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

September 29, 1896.)

Action by Anna Osmun, as administratrix, etc., against Henry J. Teeter.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2



                            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 Quarterly Report of Pyramid Breweries Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Eric G.
Peterson, Chief 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 result of operations of the Company.


/s/ ERIC G. PETERSON

Eric G. Peterson
Chief Finical Officer
August 13, 2002
Bodyguard Records.com, Inc.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                              56 Colfax Avenue
                                                              Clifton, NJ 07015
                                                              (973) 574-1315

March 29, 2002

Joseph A. Salerno
400 E. 71st Street, Apt 22A
New York, NY 10021

Re: Amendment to Loan Agreement

Dear Mr. Salerno:

This will serve to confirm our prior  conversations and negotiations  concerning
the  parameters of an amendment to the 10%, 13 month,  $100,000  loan  agreement
together with its annexed  promissory note of even date dated April 25, 2001 and
due May 25,  2002 (the "Loan  Agreement"),  executed by  Bodyguard  Records.com,
Inc., a Delaware  corporation  (the "Company") and payable to the order of Gable
Investment Trust ("Gable").  In this regard,  and in consideration of the mutual
benefit  derived  herefrom,  the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby jointly
and severally acknowledged and accepted, we hereby agree as follows:

1.   Amendment.  The Loan Agreement is hereby amended to extend the Due Date (as
     that term is defined in the Loan Agreement)  until the sooner of August 31,
     2002 or the closing date of the Company's initial public offering under and
     pursuant to Form SB-2 Registration Statement No. 333-40444.

2.   Confirmation  of  Agreements.  Except as herein  modified,  the Company and
     Gable  hereby  reconfirm  the  validity  and  enforceability  of  the  Loan
     Agreement.

If the foregoing  correctly sets forth our agreement and  understanding,  please
indicate your  acceptance by signing the enclosed copy of this letter  agreement
in the space marked  "Agreed to and Accepted" and returning the signed  document
to the undersigned via facsimile.

Very truly yours

Bodyguard Records.com, Inc.


By: /s/John Rolla
    ---------------------
    John Rollo, President


AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED:

/s/Joseph A. Salerno
------------------------
Joseph A. Salerno


JR:nas
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. EL00-66-000]

Take Notice that on April 10, 2000, the Louisiana Public Service Commission and the Council of the City of New Orleans filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a Compliant against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Services, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, Inc., Entergy Gulf States, Inc., Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Mississippi, Inc. and Entergy New Orleans, Inc. seeking amendments to the Entergy System Agreement.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should file a motion to intervene nor protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or protests must be filed on or before May 1, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at ­http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222) for assistance. Answers to he complaint shall also be due on or before May 1, 2000.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-9472  Filed 4-14-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Clewis *v.*Malone & Sons.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Henry.

Tried before the Hon. J. C. Richardson.

H. A. Pearce, for appellant.

Espy & Farmer, for appellees.

*645Opinion by

Haralson, J.

*644This suit was brought by the appellant against the appellees, who were the sureties on a bond of indemnity given the sheriff of Henry county, by Paul Jones & Co. in an attachment proceeding instituted by the said Paul Jones & Co. against one Gr. E. Clewis, which said bond was executed for the purpose of indemnifying the said sheriff in the levy of said attachment writ upon and the sale of the property, the subject of this suit, which property is alleged by the appellant to be her property and not the property of the said Gr. E. Clewis, the defendant-in attachment.

There were verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and upon motion made by the defendants for a new trial, the court granted said motion and ordered a new trial. From this judgment granting said motion for a new *645trial, the plaintiff prosecutes the present appeal, and assigns the rendition of said judgment as error.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Hurley, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lagaña, J), rendered September 20, 1982, convicting him of attempted burglary in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

By failing to move to withdraw his plea prior to or at the time of sentencing, the defendant has not preserved his claim for appellate review *(see, People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636; *People v Santiago,*100 AD2d 857). In any event, it is clear that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered his guilty plea *(see, People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9; *People v Nixon,*21 NY2d 338).

Moreover, by pleading guilty before the hearing court made a determination regarding the defendant’s motion to suppress, the defendant forfeited any right to appellate review of the denial of his motion *(see, People v Fernandez,*67 NY2d 686). In any event, the motion to suppress was properly denied.

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carlos Perez, Appellant.

Submitted January 8, 2007;

decided January 16, 2007

*842Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that it does not lie *(see*NY Const, art VI, § 3 [b]; CPLR 5601; CPL 450.90).
# C_2022006EN.01000201.xml

| 6.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/2

---

Corrigendum to Twenty-Third Annual Report according to Article 8(2) of Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP defining common rules governing the control of exports of military technology and equipment

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 515, 21 December 2021
  )

(2022/C 6/02)

On page 497:

for:

| ‘Turkey | 1 | 1 300 00,00 | 10 | 60 items | 1 300 00,00 | Turkey’ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |

‘Turkey

1

1 300 00,00

10

60 items

1 300 00,00

Turkey’

read:

| ‘Turkey | 1 | 1 300 000,00 | 10 | 60 items | 1 300 000,00 | Turkey’ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |

‘Turkey

1

1 300 000,00

10

60 items

1 300 000,00

Turkey’

---