alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99(a)

Household Finance Corporation
Household Automotive Trust 2001-2
---------------------------------


Original Principal Class A
   Class A-1                                149,000,000
   Class A-2                                173,000,000
   Class A-3                                205,000,000
   Class A-4                                173,000,000
Number of Class A Bonds (000's)
   Class A-1                                    149,000
   Class A-2                                    173,000
   Class A-3                                    205,000
   Class A-4                                    173,000


Distribution Date                                                   2002 Totals
Days

CLASS A
Class A-1 Principal Distribution                                   47,599,295.81
Class A-1 Interest Distribution                                       291,451.37

Class A-2 Principal Distribution                                  159,958,990.85
Class A-2 Interest Distribution                                     4,624,420.71

Class A-3 Principal Distribution                                            0.00
Class A-3 Interest Distribution                                     9,901,500.00

Class A-4 Principal Distribution                                            0.00
Class A-4 Interest Distribution                                     9,324,699.96
Exhibit 10.2
 
      Amendments
   The Territory consists of two segments in the United States and its territories
(excluding Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands): (1) the Hospital Medical Segment, and
(2) the Physician Medical Segment.
 United States and its territories (including without limitation, Puerto Rico United States and its territories (excluding Puerto Rico
and the US Virgin Islands).
 SOB Products) Pre-existing SOB
Product Customers),
 1




---



##### 



Miscellaneous
 Continuing Effect
 Governing, Laws
 Counterparts
  BIOSITE INCORPORATED
    
    
    
    FISHER SCIENTIFIC COMPANY L.L.C.By:
    
    /s/ Robert B. Anacone
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Kirk KimlerTitle:
    
    Sr VP, WW Marketing and Sales
    
    
    
    Title:
    
    President & General Manager
 2




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
 SOB PRODUCTS
 CatalogNumber
    
    Product
    
    Size
    
    List Price97300
    
    Triage ProfilER SOB Panel
    
    25 tests
    
    $1,175.0097301
    
    Triage ProfilER SOB Control Set (2x1)
    
    
    
    $   100.0097303
    
    Triage ProfilER SOB Control Set (5x1)
    
    
    
    $   100.0097305
    
    Triage ProfilER SOB Calibration Verification Samples
    
    
    
    $     80.00
 3
# C_2019305EN.01001202.xml

| 9.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 July 2019 — European Commission v NEX International Limited, formerly Icap plc, Icap Management Services Ltd, Icap New Zealand Ltd

(Case C-39/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Japanese yen interest rate derivatives sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Liability of an undertaking for its role as facilitator of the cartel - Calculation of the fine - Obligation to state reasons)

(2019/C 305/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin, M. Farley, T. Christoforou and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: NEX International Limited, formerly Icap plc, Icap Management Services Ltd, Icap New Zealand Ltd (represented by: C. Riis-Madsen, advokat, and by S. Frank, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.

---
Case 1:07-cv-05564-AKH Document 24 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 1 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-05564-AKH Document 24 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 2 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-05564-AKH Document 24 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 3 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-05564-AKH Document 24 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 4 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-05564-AKH Document 24 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 5 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-05564-AKH Document 24 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 6 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-05564-AKH Document 24 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 7 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-05564-AKH Document 24 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 8 of 8
#### Eric S. CLARK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA; Thomas E. Gallahue, Individually and in official capacity as agent of the City of Fairfax, Virginia; L.D. Doebel, *216police officer badge # 1113, Individually and in official capacity as employee of the City of Fairfax, Virginia, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-1416.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2013.

Decided: May 28, 2013.

Eric S. Clai'k, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eric S. Clark appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action challenging his conviction of two traffic violations. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Clark v. City of Fairfax,*No. 1:13-cv00295-LMB-JFA (E.D.Va. Mar. 12, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
----

| 1. | Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2010 , 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2010 , fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of China Digital Ventures Corporation. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: February 22, 2010                                               |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                  |   |
| /s/ Robert M. Price                                                   |   |
| Robert M. PriceChief Executive OfficerInterim Chief Financial Officer |   |
**Exhibit 23.1****Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements (Form S-8 No. 333-142261) pertaining to the Opnext, Inc.Amended and Restated 2001 Long-Term Stock Incentive Plan and (Form S-8No. 333-142260) pertaining to the Pine Photonics Communications Inc.2000 Stock Plan of our report dated June 19, 2007, except for Note 2,as to which the date is February 23, 2008, with respect to theconsolidated financial statements of Opnext, Inc. and subsidiaries included inAmendment No. 1 to its Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year endedMarch 31, 2007.                                                                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP         New York, New York
#### Charles U. SMITH, Claimant-Appellant, v. R. James NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2006-7083.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 1, 2006.

Charles U. Smith, pro se.

Before BRYSON, GAJARSA, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

*ORDER*

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves to waive the requirements of Fed. Cir. R. 27(f) and to dismiss, for lack of jurisdiction, Charles U. Smith’s appeal of the judgment in Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims case no. 03-664. Smith opposes and moves for default judgment in part and remand of his claim to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. The Secretary replies.

Smith appeals from the December 13, 2005 decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims that affirmed the Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision denying his increased rating claim for an infection of the skin and bilateral inguinal area lymph nodes. In his informal brief, Smith argues that he wants adjudication on “hearing, speech, and sight loss.” He refers to a claim for back pay. He does not address the issues raised by the decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292, this court has limited jurisdiction over appeals from decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. *See Forshey v. Principi,*284 F.3d 1335, 1338 (Fed.Cir.2002) (en banc). Smith’s appeal does not satisfy any of the grounds for invoking this court’s jurisdiction.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The Secretary’s motion to waive the requirements of Fed. Cir. R. 27(f) is granted.

(2) The Secretary’s motion to dismiss is granted.

(3) Smith’s motions are denied.

(4) Each side shall bear its own costs.
# C_2017318EN.01001402.xml

| 25.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/14

---

Action brought on 12 July 2017 — younique v EUIPO — Jafer Enterprises R&D (younique products)

(Case T-434/17)

(2017/C 318/20)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: younique LLC (Utah, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jafer Enterprises R&D, SLU (Granollers, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Party applying for the trade mark in question: Applicant

Party applying for the trade mark in question:

Trade mark in question: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘younique products’ — Application for registration No 1 191 504

Trade mark in question:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 April 2017 in Case R 1564/2016-2

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant to pay to the applicant the costs relating to and occasioned by the present application as well as the costs incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal; or, in the event that the other party in the contested decision appears as an intervener, order that the defendant and the other party in the contested decision be held jointly and severally liable to pay to the applicant the costs relating to and occasioned by the present application as well as the costs incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay to the applicant the costs relating to and occasioned by the present application as well as the costs incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal; or, in the event that the other party in the contested decision appears as an intervener, order that the defendant and the other party in the contested decision be held jointly and severally liable to pay to the applicant the costs relating to and occasioned by the present application as well as the costs incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, in that the Board of Appeal erred as to the level of attention of the relevant consumer and the similarity of the relevant marks. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, in that the Board of Appeal erred as to the level of attention of the relevant consumer and the similarity of the relevant marks.

---
Exhibit
32.1


Certification
of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March
31, 2009 (the “Report”) of United States 12 Month Oil Fund, LP (the
“Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, I, Nicholas D. Gerber, the President and Chief Executive Officer of
United States Commodity Funds LLC, General Partner of the Registrant, hereby
certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:




(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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




Date:
      May 15, 2009
                  By:
                  /s/ Nicholas
      D. GerberName:
                  Nicholas
      D. GerberTitle:
                  President
      and Chief Executive OfficerUnited
      States Commodity Funds LLC,
                    General Partner of United States 12 Month Oil Fund,
      LP
**Exhibit31.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OFPRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

I, Harvey Beker, Co-ChiefExecutive Officer of Millburn Ridgefield Corporation, the Managing Owner ofGlobal Macro Trust (the “Trust”), do hereby certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed thisannual report on Form 10-K of Global Macro Trust;

 

2. Based on my knowledge,this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this annual report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisannual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the Trust as of, and for, the periodspresented in this annual report;

 

4. The Trust’s othercertifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the Trust and have:

 

(a)  designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theTrust, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this annualreport is being prepared;

 

(b) evaluated theeffectiveness of the Trust’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation;

 

(c) disclosed in thisreport any change in the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the Trust’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Trust’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of this annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Trust’s internal control overfinancial reporting.

 

5. The Trust’s othercertifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the Trust’s auditors and theaudit committee of the Trust’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

(a) all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the Trust’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and

 

(b) any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| By:                         | /s/ Harvey Beker |   |
|-----------------------------|------------------|--------|
|                        |             |   |
|                        |             |   |
| Harvey Beker                |
| Co-Chief Executive  Officer |
| March 30, 2006              |

 

----
Exhibit 99.7  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
PETROLEUM ENGINEERS  We hereby consent to the
use and reference to our name and reports evaluating a portion of EnCana
Corporations petroleum and natural gas reserves as of December 31, 2007,
and the information derived from our reports, as described or incorporated by
reference in: (i) EnCana Corporations Annual Report on Form 40-F for
the year ended December 31, 2007; (ii) EnCana Corporations and
EnCana Holdings Finance Corp.s registration statement on Form F-9 (File
Nos. 333-133648-01 and 333-133648); (iii) EnCana Corporations
registration statement on Form F-9 (File No. 333-137182); and (iv) EnCana
Corporations registration statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-124218,
333-13956, 333-140856 and 333-85598), filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, or the Securities Act of 1933, as amended as applicable.  NETHERLAND,
  SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC./s/ C.H. (Scott) Rees
  III, P.E.By:C.H. (Scott) Rees III,
  P.E.Chairman and Chief
  Executive OfficerDallas, TexasFebruary 22, 2008
Exhibit 10.11 





 LETTER AGREEMENT

 May 28, 2009     

 ExamWorks, Inc.

3280 Peachtree Road

Suite 2625

Atlanta, GA 30305

Attn: Miguel Fernandez de Castro

		
	
      Re:    

	
Monitoring Fee Agreement, dated July 14, 2008, between Compass Partners, L.L.C. and ExamWorks, Inc. (the “Monitoring Agreement”)





 Dear Miguel:

      The purpose of this letter is to correct a recently discovered mutual mistake in the definition of EBITDA in the Monitoring Agreement. Effective July 14, 2008, as originally intended, the Monitoring Fee shall be equal to five percent (5%) of the Company’s “Adjusted EBITDA” as that term is defined from time to time in that certain Credit Agreement dated as of July 14, 2008 between the Company and Bank of America, N.A., as amended from time to time.

      Except as amended above, the Monitoring Agreement shall continue to be in full force and effect.

      Please confirm that the foregoing is in accordance with your understanding by signing and returning to us the enclosed copy of this Letter Agreement.

			
	     	 	Very truly yours,
	 	  	 
	 	 	Compass Partners, L.L.C.
	 	 	   
	 	 	  
	  	 By:  	 /s/ Richard E. Perlman
      

    
	 	
       

    	Richard E. Perlman 

      President




	
	 Agreed and Accepted:
	  
	 ExamWorks, Inc.




		
	 By:  	     /s/ Miguel Fernandez de Castro
	 	
      

    
	  	 Miguel Fernandez de Castro
	  	 Chief Financial Officer
	 	 


	 
      Date:   
    	    May 29, 2009
# C_2020279EN.01000402.xml

| 24.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 June 2020 — Bank for Development and Foreign Economic Affairs (Vnesheconombank) v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-731/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the Russian Federation’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Appellant’s name included and retained in the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Right to effective judicial protection - Misuse of power - Right to property - Equal treatment)

(2020/C 279/06)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Bank for Development and Foreign Economic Affairs (Vnesheconombank) (represented by: J. Viñals Camallonga and J. Iriarte Ángel, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Florindo Gijón and P. Mahnič, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented initially by S. Pardo Quintillán, A. Tizzano and C. Zadra, and subsequently by S. Pardo Quintillán and J. Roberti di Sarsina, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Bank for Development and Foreign Economic Affairs (Vnesheconombank) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Bank for Development and Foreign Economic Affairs (Vnesheconombank) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 18.2.2019.

---
#### In the Matter of Reid Bielecki, Petitioner, v Cesar A. Perales, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to review a determination of the respondent Cesar A. Perales, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, dated February 8, 1989, which, after a hearing, found that the petitioner was operating an "adult care facility” without an operating certificate in violation of Social Services Law § 460-b (1), and assessed a fine against him of $1,000 per day for the operation of the facility.

Ordered that the determination is confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

Upon our review of the record we conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the finding that the petitioner was operating an "adult care facility”. Several of the current residents of the petitioner’s facility were shown to have been "unable or substantially unable to live independently” (Social Services Law § 2 [21]; *Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222). The petitioner points out that two doctors testified at the hearing that the prognosis had changed for the residents and that all could live independently. However, the Administrative Law Judge’s assessment that the doctors’ testimony was incredible was within his province *(see, Matter of Amber Rock Pharmacy v Axelrod,*111 AD2d 848). On this record we find no reason to disturb that assessment.

In addition, we cannot say that the penalty imposed is so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness *(see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., supra).*

We have reviewed the petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
#### BETTER BAGS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REDI BAG USA, LLC, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2013-1064.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 15, 2013.

Miranda Y. Jones, Heim, Payne & Cho-rush LLP, of Houston, TX, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Of counsel on the brief was Anastassios Triantaphyllis, Trianta-phyllis Law Firm, of Houston, TX.

Joseph J. Zito, DNL Zito, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant.

LOURIE, SCHALL, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.