alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 12.1

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, John Condron, as Chief Executive Officer of Yell Finance B.V. and Yellow Pages Limited (the Companies) hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (1) |  | the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F report for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (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 Companies.
| | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  | YELL FINANCE B.V.                   
|--- |  | ------------------------------------
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/ JOHN CONDRON                    
|    | 
|    |  | John Condron Chief Executive Officer



|    |  | YELLOW PAGES LIMITED                
|--- |  | ------------------------------------
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/ JOHN CONDRON                    
|    | 
|    |  | John Condron Chief Executive Officer



Date:
July 1, 2003



NB: A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to Yell Finance B.V. and will be retained by Yell Finance B.V. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2018166EN.01001901.xml

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 1 February 2018 — Vitali SpA v Autostrade per l’Italia SpA

(Case C-63/18)

(2018/C 166/24)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vitali SpA

Applicant:

Defendant: Autostrade per l’Italia SpA

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Do the principles of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services referred to in Articles 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Article 71 of Directive 2014/24 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014, (1) which does not contemplate quantitative limitations on subcontracting, and the EU-law principle of proportionality preclude the application of national legislation in matters relating to public procurement, such as the Italian rule set out in the third sentence of Article 105(2) of Legislative Decree No 50 of 18 April 2016, pursuant to which subcontracting cannot exceed 30 % of the total amount of the contract for works, services or supplies?

1

---

(1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).

1

---
**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 Biosolar, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Lee, Chief
      Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





November
                ___,
                2007Derek
              W.
              McLeishChief
              Executive
              Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

City of Midland, * From the County Court at 

 Law No. 2 of Midland County,

 Trial Court No. CC-14,397.

Vs. No. 11-13-00117-CV * April 17, 2014

M.T.D. Environmental, L.L.P., * Opinion by Wright, C.J.

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Bailey, J., and McCall, sitting

by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

 This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is 

error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the 

order of the trial court is reversed in part, and judgment is rendered dismissing the 

claims made in this lawsuit by M.T.D. Environmental, L.L.P. under the Prompt 

Payment Act. We affirm as to the trial court’s jurisdiction to hear M.T.D.’s claims 

under Chapter 271 of the Texas Local Government Code, and we remand that 

portion of this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this 

opinion. The costs incurred by reason of this appeal are taxed against M.T.D. 

Environmental, L.L.P.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

OSG AMERICA L.P.

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a), AS AMENDED

 

I, Myles R. Itkin, certify that:

 

1.              Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of OSG America L.P.

 

2.              Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.              Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.              TheRegistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and we 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 theRegistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisannual report is being prepared;

 

b.             Evaluated the effectiveness of theRegistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c.              Disclosed in this report any change inthe Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.              TheRegistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theRegistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of Registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a.              All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b.             Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theRegistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  | August 5, 2008     |   | /s/ Myles R. Itkin |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|--------------------|
|   | Myles R. Itkin          |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

1

----
# C_2017382EN.01005002.xml

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/50

---

Action brought on 19 September 2017 — Hola v Commission and SRB

(Case T-631/17)

(2017/C 382/63)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hola, S.L. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset and C. Iglesias Megías, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendants: Single Resolution Board and European Commission

Defendants:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A.; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

| — | Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme of Banco Popular Español, S.A.; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

| — | Where appropriate, declare Articles 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 and/or 24 of Regulation No 806/2014 inapplicable, in accordance with Article 277 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

Where appropriate, declare Articles 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 and/or 24 of Regulation No 806/2014 inapplicable, in accordance with Article 277 TFEU;

| — | Order SRB and the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order SRB and the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.

Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos

Single Resolution Board

Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL

Single Resolution Board

Comercial Vascongada Recalde

Commission and Single Resolution Board

García Suárez and Others

Commission and Single Resolution Board

Fidesban and Others

Single Resolution Board

Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015

Commission and Single Resolution Board

Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda

Commission and Single Resolution Board

---
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Texas Southern University v. Pepper Lawson 

Horizon International Group, LLC.

Appellate case number: 01-19-00395-CV

Trial court case number: 2018-32362

Trial court: 157th District Court of Harris County

Counsel for appellant has filed an “Agreed Motion to Reset Oral Argument,” which is 

scheduled for October 23, 2019. The motion is granted. The case will be set for submission at a 

later date.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _____/s/ Julie Countiss_____

Acting for the Court

Date: October 15, 2019
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Genaro Campos, Appellant, v James Conway, Superintendent, Attica Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Submitted February 16, 2010;

decided April 29, 2010

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*13 NY3d 934 (2010)].
**Exhibit 12.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Daniel Valot, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Technip;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report;  4. The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-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 is beingprepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
 5. The company’s other certifying officer 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 30, 2005 By:  /s/Daniel Valot   Daniel Valot    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Chapter 1331 

Crude Oil Fixed Swap - NGX MSW (CAD)

DESCRIPTION 

A monthly cash settled swap based upon the settlement price published by ICE NGX for the 

location specified in Floating Price A. 

FLOATING PRICE A 

The Floating Price for each contract month shall be equal to the sum of the arithmetic average 

of the NYMEX WTI Crude Oil futures first nearby contract settlement price for each business day 

that corresponds to the delivery month and the volume weighted average of ICE SW 1a Index 

for each trading day during the Calculation Period. The Calculation Period, beginning on the first 

Canadian business day of the calendar month prior to the contract month and ends on the 

Canadian business day prior to the NOS date (as published by Enbridge) in the same calendar 

month. 

CONTRACT UNIT AND VALUE 

The contract unit shall be in U. S barrels. Each contract shall be valued as the contract quantity 

in U. S. barrels multiplied by the settlement price. 

LISTING CYCLE 

Up to 60 consecutive monthly Contract Periods 

PRICING AND FLUCTUATIONS 

Prices shall be quoted in Canadian Dollars and cents per barrel. The minimum price fluctuation 

shall be $0.01 per U. S. barrel. The minimum price increment will be $0.001. There shall be no 

maximum price fluctuation. 

TERMINATION OF TRADING 

Trading shall cease one Canadian business day prior to the Notice of Shipments (NOS) date on 

the Enbridge Pipeline. The NOS date occurs on or about the 20th calendar day of the month, 

subject to confirmation by Enbridge Pipeline. The official schedule for the NOS dates will be 

made publicly available by Enbridge Pipeline prior to the start of each year. 

FINAL SETTLEMENT 

Delivery under the contract shall be by cash settlement in Canadian Dollars. Final settlement, 

following termination of posting for a contract month, will be based on the Floating Price A. The 

final settlement price will be the Floating Price A, converted to Canadian Dollars, as prescribed 

by the Currency Conversion. 

CURRENCY CONVERSION 

Daily WRM Noon Rate for CAD per unit of USD as reporting by Refinitiv.
NO. 07-03-0099-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

MARCH 19, 2003

______________________________

JAMES GABRIEL RIVERS, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 181ST DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY;

NO. 12,748-B; HONORABLE JOHN BOARD, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant James Gabriel Rivers filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal on March 14,

2003, stating that he desires to withdraw his appeal. The Motion to Dismiss is signed by

both appellant and his attorney. 

Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant appellant’s motion for voluntary

dismissal and hereby dismiss the appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. Having dismissed the
2

appeal at appellant’s personal request, we will not entertain a motion for rehearing, and our

mandate will issue forthwith. 

James T. Campbell

 Justice

Do not publish.
(104 So. 916)

#### BIRMINGHAM TRUST & SAVINGS CO., Adm’r, v. Ella S. DUPUY.

(6 Div. 404.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 28, 1925.)

■Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County;. C. B. Smith, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed by appellant.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

October 16, 2015

t1014 

# Order

Clerk October 16, 2015

150001

COALITION PROTECTING AUTO NO

- FAULT,

BRAIN INJURY ASSOCIATION OF

MICHIGAN, ILENE IKENS, RICHARD IKENS,

KENNETH WISSER, SUSAN WISSER,

GREGORY WOLFE, and KAREN WOLFE,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v SC: 150001

COA: 314310

Ingham CC: 12

- 000068

- CZ

MICHIGAN CATASTROPHIC CLAIMS

ASSOCIATION,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On October 13, 2015, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to

appeal the May 20, 2014 judgment of the Court of Appeals. The application is again

considere d and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we

VACATE that part of the Court of Appeals opinion holding that MCL 500.134(4) does

not violate art 4, § 25 of the Michigan Constitution. In its opinion, the Court of Appeals

assume d without deciding that the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association (MCCA) is

a “public body.” We REMAND this case for reconsideration of this issue. On remand,

the Court of Appeals is directed to decide the issue whether the MCCA is a “public body”

sub ject to the Freedom of Information Act, MCL 15.231 et seq ., under MCL 15.232(d).

Compare MCL 15.232(d)(iv) (a “public body” includes “[a]ny other body which is

created by state or local authority”) and League Gen Ins Co v Michigan Catastrophic

Claims Ass’ n , 435 Mich 338, 351 (1990) (holding that the MCCA is not a “state agency”

but a “private association”); see also 1988 PA 349, § 2 (providing “legislative intent”

pertaining to the status of the MCCA). The Court of Appeals shall then reconsider

whether MC L 500.134(4) violates art 4, § 25 in light of its resolution of that issue. In all

other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the

remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

We do not retain jurisdic tion.
# C_2020068EN.01002301.xml

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/23

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 December 2019 — Motex Ipari és Szolgáltató Rehabilitációs Kft. (Motex Kft.) v European Commission

(Case C-748/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - State aid - Aid implemented by Hungary in favour of companies employing disabled workers - Action for annulment - Alleged decisions not to raise objections - Lack of standing - Person not individually concerned - Action not brought in order to safeguard procedural rights - Inadmissibility of the action at first instance - Appeal manifestly unfounded)

(2020/C 68/23)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Appellant: Motex Ipari és Szolgáltató Rehabilitációs Kft. (Motex Kft.) (represented by: L. Szabó, ügyvéd)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and C. Georgieva-Kecsmar, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed as being manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed as being manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | Motex Ipari és Szolgáltató Rehabilitációs Kft. (Motex Kft.) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Motex Ipari és Szolgáltató Rehabilitációs Kft. (Motex Kft.) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.

---
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC,

Appellant

v.

ARM LTD., ARM, INC.,

Appellees

______________________

2019-2091, 2019-2092, 2019-2093, 2019-2094

______________________

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2018-

00101, IPR2018-00102, IPR2018-01148, IPR2018-01149.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

WILLIAM MEUNIER, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., Boston, MA, argued for appellant. 

Also represented by ADAM RIZK, MICHAEL RENAUD, DANIEL 

B. WEINGER. 

 KEVIN PAUL ANDERSON, Duane Morris LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellees. 

 ______________________

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

Case: 19-2091 Document: 54 Page: 1 Filed: 06/03/2020
ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (REYNA, SCHALL, and STOLL, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

June 3, 2020 

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 19-2091 Document: 54 Page: 2 Filed: 06/03/2020
#### STATE v. CHANCE

No. 319P98

Case below: 130 N.C.App. 107

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 5 November 1998.