alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv4w1





Exhibit 4.1



Ordnungsnr. [•]




ELSTER GROUP SE

Essen




GLOBALURKUNDE



über



[•] auf den Namen der [•]



lautende
Stammaktien mit einem Nennbetrag in Höhe von je EUR 1,00



Aktiennummern 1 – [•]



Diese Globalurkunde ist ausschließlich zur Verwahrung bei der Deutschen Bank AG, Frankfurt am Main,
bestimmt.




Zu dieser Globalurkunde wurde kein Globalgewinnanteilschein ausgefertigt.


Die in der Globalurkunde verbrieften Aktien nehmen vom Beginn des Geschäftsjahres, in dem die
Ausgabe erfolgt, am Gewinn teil.




Essen, im [•] 2010




ELSTER GROUP SE




	 	 	 	 	 

	Der Verwaltungsrat	 	Die geschäftsführenden Direktoren

	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 
	 	 
	 	 
	Vorsitzender	 	 	 	 



















 





Exhibit 4.1




Convenience Translation

Serial no. [l]




ELSTER GROUP SE

Essen




GLOBAL CERTIFICATE



for




[l] ordinary shares registered in the name of [l]

with a notional value in the amount of EUR 1.00 per share



Share numbers 1 - [l]



This global certificate is exclusively intended to be held in custody by

Deutsche Bank AG, Frankfurt am Main.




No global dividend coupon has been issued for this global certificate.



The shares represented by this global certificate will participate in the profits as of the

commencement of the financial year in which the certificate was issued.



Essen, [l] 2010



ELSTER GROUP SE



	 	 	 	 	 

	The Administrative Board
	 	The Managing Directors
	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 
	 	 
	Chairman
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 1199

In re: CATHERINE DENISE RANDOLPH
, Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. James K. Bredar
, Chief District Judge. ( 1:15

- mc

- 00369 )

Submitted : June 21, 2018 Decided: June 25, 2018

Before DIAZ and HARRIS , Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Catherine Denise Randolph, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Catherine Denise Randolph appeals the district court’s order returning her
complaint because it was not in compliance with the pre filing injunction. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed
in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2347 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2347

     To expand in-country processing of family units and minors in 
Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador to provide relief to the southern 
  border and uphold access to humanitarian protection consistent with 
                               U.S. laws.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 18, 2019

    Mr. Vela (for himself, Mr. Gonzalez of Texas, and Mr. Cuellar) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To expand in-country processing of family units and minors in 
Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador to provide relief to the southern 
  border and uphold access to humanitarian protection consistent with 
                               U.S. laws.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Border and Refugee Assistance Act of 
2019''.

SEC. 2. NEED FOR COMPREHENSIVE ASSISTANCE STRATEGY.

    It is the sense of Congress that a multifaceted U.S. response is 
needed to address the humanitarian crisis in the Northern Triangle. 
Such a response must include U.S. investment in the Northern Triangle 
aimed at improving governance, enhancing security, and promoting 
prosperity in the region as well as investments in the U.S. Department 
of State's Refugee Processing Center, USCIS Asylum Division, and U.S. 
Immigration Courts to uphold access to humanitarian protection 
consistent with U.S. law and international standards. In-country 
processing of refugee claims is only one component of a comprehensive 
strategy, aimed at providing increased economic and security conditions 
in the Northern Triangle.

SEC. 3. EXPANSION OF IN-COUNTRY PROCESSING.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law:
     (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State 
shall work together to expand in-country refugee processing centers 
within Northern Triangle countries to accept applications from family 
units and minors in order to provide a safe and orderly process for 
processing claims and ensuring humanitarian protection.
    (b) Victims of domestic violence and gangs are eligible to qualify 
for refugee protections.
    (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated such sums as may be necessary to implement section 3.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit
10.1


 


SECOND AMENDMENT TO


CONFIDENTIAL LICENSE AGREEMENT
FOR NINTENDO DS


(Western Hemisphere)


 


THIS SECOND AMENDMENT (“Second Amendment”) amends that
certain Confidential License Agreement for Nintendo DS (Western Hemisphere)
effective November 1, 2004 between Nintendo of America Inc. (“Nintendo”)
and THQ Inc. (“Licensee”) (“Agreement”).


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, Nintendo and Licensee entered into the
Agreement;


 


WHEREAS, the Agreement (as amended) currently expires on
November 1, 2010, and the parties now desire to extend the Term (as such
term is defined in the Agreement) of the Agreement as set forth below.


 


AMENDMENT


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:


 


1.             The
definition of “Term” as set forth in Section 2.20 of the Agreement is
hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:


 


“‘Term’ means nine (9) years from the Effective
Date.”


 


2.             The
Term of the Agreement shall now expire on October 31, 2013.


 


3.             All
other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect.  This Second Amendment may be
signed in counterparts, which together shall constitute one original Second
Amendment.


 


4.             Signatures
provided by facsimile or by email (i.e., a scanned document) shall be the
equivalent of originals.


 


This Second Amendment shall be
effective as of October 31, 2010.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have entered into this
Second Amendment.


 


 


	
  NINTENDO:

  	
   

  	
  LICENSEE:

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Nintendo of America Inc.

  	
   

  	
  THQ Inc.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/ James R. Cannataro

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Brian J. Farrell

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Name:

  	
  James R. Cannataro

  	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  Brian Farrell

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Its:

  	
  EVP, Administration

  	
   

  	
  Its:

  	
  President and CEO
# C_2017213EN.01003702.xml

| 3.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/37

---

Action brought on 9 May 2017 — GE.CO.P. v Commission

(Case T-280/17)

(2017/C 213/51)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: GE.CO.P. Generale Costruzioni e Progettazioni SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G. Naticchioni, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should, after declaring unlawful the adoption by the European Commission — Office for Infrastructure and Logistics, Luxembourg — of the decision of 7 March 2017 by which the applicant, GE.CO.P. SpA, was excluded for a period of two years from European tendering procedures and the measure was published, annul that decision and all of the acts which stem from it or are conditional upon it, including those of which the applicant is unaware, and order the Commission to pay the costs relating to the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested measure concerns the termination by the Commission of its own motion, on 5 August 2015, of the public works contract No 09bis/2012/OIL — Lot 1 concerning renovation works on two buildings, referred to as the ‘Foyer européen’ located in Luxembourg, awarded to GE.CO.P.

In support of the action, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 8 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/1929 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 October 2015 amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2015 L 286, p. 1), as well as infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

The applicant claims in this regard that the contested decision was not preceded by a proper adversarial procedure. The applicant claims that it was not informed of the commencement of the exclusion procedure and was therefore not in a position to defend itself in the context of the procedure and put forward arguments in its favour before the adjudicating body.

Had the applicant been in a position to defend itself, it would have put forward arguments in its defence which would most likely have resulted in a change in the adjudicating body’s opinion on the matter and a different outcome to the overall proceedings, more favourable to GE.CO.P.

---
# C_2018052EN.01003902.xml

| 12.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/39

---

Action brought on 14 December 2017 — Nerantzaki v Commission

(Case T-813/17)

(2018/C 052/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Eleni Nerantzaki (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the EPSO selection board of 7 March 2017 not to admit the applicant to the next stage of open competition EPSO/AD/331/16; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the EPSO selection board of 7 March 2017 not to admit the applicant to the next stage of open competition EPSO/AD/331/16;

| — | annul the decision of the appointing authority Ares(2017)s. 4916702 of 14 September 2017, rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the decision not to admit the applicant to open competition EPSO/AD/331/16; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the appointing authority Ares(2017)s. 4916702 of 14 September 2017, rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the decision not to admit the applicant to open competition EPSO/AD/331/16;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with the present application. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with the present application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment by the defendant in the assessment of the applicant’s professional qualifications. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment by the defendant in the assessment of the applicant’s professional qualifications.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the notice of competition EPSO/AD/331/16. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the notice of competition EPSO/AD/331/16.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging inadequate and contradictory reasoning such as to constitute a breach both of Article 25 and of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging inadequate and contradictory reasoning such as to constitute a breach both of Article 25 and of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.

---
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

December 28, 2011 

h1219 

Order 

 

December 28, 2011 

143578 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143578 

 COA: 303186 

JAMES BOYD WEBB, Wayne CC: 10-008306-FH 

Defendant-Appellant. 

____________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 21, 2011 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Atlas America Public #10 Ltd. (the
"Partnership") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Nancy J. McGurk, Chief Financial Officer of the Managing General Partner,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

                                                  /s/ Nancy J. McGurk
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Nancy J. McGurk
                                                  Chief Financial Officer of the
                                                  Managing General Partner
================================================================================

Exhibit 32.1


                            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  Bonfire  Productions, Inc. (the
"Company") on  Form 10-QSB for  the  period ended March 31, 2008 as  filed  with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on  the  date  hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in  the  capacities  and  on  the  dates  indicated  below,  hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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

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


Date:  April 29, 2008

/s/ Alexander Kulyashov
--------------------------
Alexander Kulyashov
President, Chief Executive
Officer, and Director
#### In Re: Derrick MILLARD, Sr.; Tracie M. Millard, Debtors. SunTrust Bank, Movant-Appellant, v. Derrick Millard, Sr.; Tracie M. Millard, Debtors—Appellees, and Timothy P. Branigan, Trustee. National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys, Amicus Supporting Appellees.

No. 09-2266.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 18, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 15, 2010.

Matthew A. Egeli, John Russell Griffin, Hartman & Egeli, LLP, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellant. Derrick Millard, Sr., Tracie M. Millard, Appellees Pro Se. Tara A. Twomey, Carmel, California, for Amicus Supporting Appellees.

Before KING, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

SunTrust appeals the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting the Debtors’ Motion to Avoid Lien. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *SunTrust Bank v. Millard,*No. 8:08-cv-03002-MJG, 08-17964 (D. Md. Nov. 7, 2008) & 414 B.R. 73 (Sept. 28, 2009). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be*805fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION (CEO) 1350
 
 CHINA AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, INC.
 
 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 Annual Report of China Automotive Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Qizhou Wu, 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, that:
 
 (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Date: June 24, 2011
 
 /s/ Qizhou WuQizhou WuChief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 15, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 26824]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12223]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 301

[REG-121928-98]
RIN 1545-AW99


Awards of Attorney's Fees and Other Costs Based Upon Qualified 
Offers; Hearing Cancellation

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed 
rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides notice of cancellation of a public 
hearing on proposed rulemaking issuing temporary regulations relating 
to the circumstances in which a party, by reason of having made a 
qualified offer, will be entitled to an award of court costs and 
certain fees in a civil tax proceedings brought in a court of the 
United States (including the Tax Court).

DATES: The public hearing originally scheduled for May 23, 2001 at 10 
a.m., is cancelled.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Treena Garrett of the Regulations 
Unit, Office of Special Counsel (Modernization & Strategic Planning), 
(202) 622-7180 (not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice of proposed rulemaking and notice 
of public hearing that appeared in the Federal Register on Thursday, 
January 4, 2001, (66 FR 749), announced that a public hearing was 
scheduled for Wednesday, May 23, 2001, at 10 a.m., in Room 4718, 
Internal Revenue Service Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC. The subject of the public hearing is proposed 
rulemaking under section 7430 of the Internal Revenue. The public 
comment period for these proposed regulations expired on Wednesday, 
April 4, 2001.
    The notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing, 
instructed those interested in testifying at the public hearing to 
submit a request to speak and an outline of the topics to be addressed. 
As of Wednesday, May 9, 2001, no one has requested to speak. Therefore, 
the public hearing scheduled for Wednesday, May 23, 2001, is cancelled.

Cynthia E. Grigsby,
Chief, Regulations Unit, Office of Special Counsel (Modernization and 
Strategic Planning).
[FR Doc. 01-12223 Filed 5-14-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 1028

KIMBERLY MALLETT , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. DISNEY ENTERPRISES , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Rossie David Alston, Jr. , District Judge. ( 1:21

- cv - 00616

- RDA

- JFA )

Submitted : April 14, 2022 Decided: April 19, 2022

Before DIAZ and RUSHING , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Kimberly Mallett, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kimberly Mallett appeals the district court’s order striking her amended complaint. * On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir.
R. 34(b). Because Mallett ’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, she has forfeited appellate review of the district court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document ; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’s order

. Mallett v. Disney Ent ers
. , No. 1:21

- cv - 00616

- RDA

- JFA (E.D. Va

. Dec. 21, 2021). We deny Malle t t’s motions to
appo int counsel and for discovery

. 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

* To the extent Mallett seeks to appeal the district court’s November 24, 2021, order dismissing her original complaint , the notice of appeal was untimely filed , and we therefore dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007) (“ [ T ] he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.”).
Easy Scripts, Inc 10-Q






Exhibit 32.2


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Easy Scripts, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Aaron Crowley, 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, to the best of my knowledge:





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





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











November 20, 2009                                                                               /s/
Aaron Crowley


Aaron Crowley


Chief Financial Officer