alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.27

 

Summary of the Share Purchase and Sale Agreement entered into between Amazônia Energia Participações S.A. and Construtora Queiroz Galvão S.A., Construtora OAS Ltda., Contern Construções e Comércio Ltda, Cetenco Engenharia S.A., Galvão Engenharia S.A. and J. Malucelli Construtora de Obras S.A., for shares in Norte Energia S.A.

 

On October 25, 2011, Companhia Energética de Minas Gerais – CEMIG (“Cemig”) and Light S.A. (“Light”), through Amazônia Energia Participações S.A. (“Amazônia Energia”) entered into a Share Purchase and Sale Agreement for the purchase of Norte Energia S.A (“Norte Energia”). The Agreement was signed with six companies holding, in aggregate, 9.77% ownership of Norte Energia S.A, a corporation holding the concession for construction and commercial operation of the Belo Monte Hydroelectric Plant, on the Xingu River in the State of Pará (the “Belo Monte Plant”).

 

The stockholders of Amazônia Energia Participações S.A. are Light S.A. (with 25.5% of the total share capital) and Cemig Geração e Transmissão S.A. (“Cemig GT”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cemig (with 74.5% of the total share capital). Amazônia Energia Participações S.A. will acquire, from the Vendors, the following equity interests in Norte Energia:

 

(i)                                     Construtora Queiroz Galvão S.A.: 2.51%;

(ii)                                  Construtora OAS Ltda.: 2.51%;

(iii)                               Contern Construções e Comércio Ltda.: 1.25%;

(iv)                              Cetenco Engenharia S.A.: 1.25%;

(v)                                 Galvão Engenharia S.A.: 1.25%; and

(vi)                              J. Malucelli Construtora de Obras S.A.: 1%.

 

The acquisition price was R$ 118.69 million, payable within five business days after signature of the agreements, for a 9.77% interest in Norte Energia.

 

The acquisition price corresponds to the amounts of capital injected by the Vendors, adjusted by the IPCA inflation index up to October 26, 2011.

 

Under the Stockholders’ Agreement of Norte Energia, Amazônia Energia will have the right to appoint

 

·                  one member of the Board of Directors (and his/her substitute member),

·                  one member of each Committee of the Board of Directors,

·                  the Chief Management Officer, and

·                  one member of the Audit Board, in a rotating system with other stockholders.

 

The entry of Amazônia Energia Participações S.A. as stockholder of Norte Energia in substitution of the Vendors was approved by the Extraordinary General Meeting of Stockholders of Norte Energia held on that date.

 

The National Electricity Agency (Agência Nacional de Energia Elétrica, or Aneel) will be duly advised of the transaction, and the transaction was approved by the Economic Defense Administrative Council (Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica, or Cade), in accordance with Law 8884/94.
Michael Bernard BELL, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 19-7503.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 30, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
Gerardo FLORES, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 17-8932.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
B & B HARDWARE, INC., Petitioner, v. HARGIS INDUSTRIES, INC.

No. 19-48

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 08/13/13          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      867,810
COMMITMENTS
  98,249   39,449  277,023  471,934  529,109  847,207  845,581   20,603   22,229

CHANGES FROM 08/06/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     36,492)
     943    4,530   14,212   17,632   16,412   32,787   35,155    3,706    1,338

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    11.3      4.5     31.9     54.4     61.0     97.6     97.4      2.4      2.6

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      153)
      42       39       61       65       67      140      135
```

----

Updated August 16, 2013
Horacio DOMINGUEZ-VILLALOBOS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-6500.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 9, 2020.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
# C_2017196EN.01000301.xml

| 20.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 196/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 196/3

---

Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006
   (1)
  )

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006

1

)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 196/03)

Decisions granting an authorisation

Decisions granting an authorisation

| Reference of the decision (2) | Date of decision | Substance name | Holder of the authorisation | Authorisation number | Authorised uses | Date of expiry of review period | Reasons for the decision |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| C(2017) 3910 | 13 June 2017 | Potassium dichromate
  EC No 231-906-6,
  CAS No 7778-50-9 | Sofradir |
| Avenue de la Vauve, |
| 91120 Palaiseau, France |

Reference of the decision (2)

2

Date of decision

Substance name

Holder of the authorisation

Authorisation number

Authorised uses

Date of expiry of review period

Reasons for the decision

C(2017) 3910

13 June 2017

Potassium dichromate

EC No 231-906-6,

CAS No 7778-50-9

Sofradir

Avenue de la Vauve,

91120 Palaiseau, France

REACH/17/14/0

Industrial use of potassium dichromate-based mixtures during the steps of initial and final etching of CZT layers during the production of opto-electronic components gathering a readout and an infrared detecting circuit with the MCT technology.

21 September 2024

In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socioeconomic benefits outweigh the risk to human health arising from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies in terms of their technical and economic feasibility.

REACH/17/14/1

Industrial use of potassium dichromate-based mixtures during the etching of both InSb substrate sides during the production of opto-electronic components gathering a readout and an infrared detecting circuit with the InSb technology.

21 September 2021

---

(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

1

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/reach/about/index_en.htm

2

---
Ray Edward BARRY, Petitioner, v. Patrick WARREN, Warden.

No. 19-7578.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 30, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT B

Case 2:24-cv-00046-JRG-RSP Document 7-2 Filed 03/21/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 99
HZC

Transmittal Number: 28431128

Rejection of Service of Process

Return to Sender Information:

Randall Garteiser null

Garteiser Honea, PLLC

119 W Ferguson Street

Tyler, TX 75702

Date: 01/31/2024

Party Served: Wondershare Technology Group Co Ltd

Title of Action: Display Technologies, LLC vs. Wondershare Technology Group Co Ltd.

Case/Reference No: 2:24-cv-00046-JRG-RSP

The service of process received for the party served, as listed above, cannot be forwarded to the intended party for the

reason listed below:

According to the Secretary of State or other appropriate state agency, the party served is not qualified to do business in

the jurisdiction served. CSC is only authorized to receive service of process on behalf of entities that specifically name it

as registered/statutory agent within the jurisdiction where service of process occurs. Please review the records at the

Secretary of State or other appropriate state agency to identify the proper name within the jurisdiction for the entity you are

trying to serve.

Our customer records are confidential. We do not release any information related to our customers, agent representation

or service of process received. Please contact the Secretary of State or other appropriate agency for more information.

For an electronic copy of the identified service, send your request by e-mail to sop@cscglobal.com. Please include the

transmittal number located in the upper right-hand corner of this letter.

251 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, Delaware 19808-1674

(888) 690-2882 | sop@cscglobal.com

Case 2:24-cv-00046-JRG-RSP Document 7-2 Filed 03/21/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 100
M A N D A T E

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 407TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on June 10, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise

or reverse your judgment between

In the Interest of D.W.H., Appellant

V.

No. 04-14-00525-CV and Tr. Ct. No. 2009-CI-10424

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the

trial court is AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are taxed against appellant

James D. Halsell.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of

Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on August 19, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04-14-00525-CV

In the Interest of D.W.H.

v.

(NO. 2009-CI-10424 IN 407TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

REPORTER'S RECORD

INDIGENT

STATEWIDE EFILING FEE

SUPREME COURT CHAPTER 51

FEE

FILING

CLERK'S RECORD

$10.00

$10.00

$147.50

$25.00

$20.00

$50.00

$100.00

$212.00

E-PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

KATE C. SOULSBY

JAMES HALSELL

MR. JAMES HALSELL

JAMES HALSELL

JAMES HALSELL

JAMES HALSELL

JAMES HALSELL

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF

TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and

payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for

the Fourth District of Texas, this August 19, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
Charles L. TRICE, Petitioner, v. Mark S. INCH, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 18-9670

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 07, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Exhibit 31.3
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Ronald A. Mayo, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of MediaNewsGroup, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: March 29, 2004
/S/Ronald A MayoRonald A. MayoVice President & Chief Financial Officer
```
  
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 02/12/13          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       48,409
COMMITMENTS
   5,456    2,899    3,067   26,897   29,696   35,420   35,662   12,989   12,747

CHANGES FROM 02/05/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      2,412)
    -470       66     -299    2,194    1,460    1,425    1,228      987    1,184

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    11.3      6.0      6.3     55.6     61.3     73.2     73.7     26.8     26.3

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       53)
       7        8       10       31       25       45       39
```

----

Updated February 15, 2013
Quincy MAGEE, petitioner, v. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, et al.

No. 18-8613.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 5, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*Herman Bernstein, Defendant.

County Court, Dutchess County,

June 11, 1973.

*William J. Ciolko*for defendant. *Albert M. Rosenblatt, District Attorney (Gerald V. Hayes*of counsel), for plaintiff.

*715Joseph Jiudice, J.

This is a petition by the above-named defendant to dismiss the indictment on the ground the defendant’s rights under the Uniform Detainers Agreement (CPL art. 580) have been violated.

The petitioner is an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution at Danbury, Connecticut. He had been arrested in June, 1970, was indicted in December, 1971, by the Dutchess County Grand Jury. In August of 1972 while the petitioner was confined at the Federal Correctional Institution, this court dismissed the first indictment with leave to submit the matter to another Grand Jury. The defendant was again indicted on November 10, 1972 for the same charges and during December, 1972, the petitioner was brought to this court for the purpose of arraignment. He was thereafter returned to the Federal authorities in Danbury. The defendant’s contention is that he should have been tried at the time he was brought to Dutchess County Court in December, 1972, and that the failure to try the indictment is grounds for dismissal under CPL 580.20 (art. IV, subd. [e]).

The court has read the entire record in this matter and determines the defendant was brought here in December of 1972 to be arraigned on the second indictment. At the time, through his attorney, the matter was adjourned for the purpose of allowing the defendant to make certain motions to the indictment. Motions were made in December, 1972, on behalf of this defendant. Therefore, at the time, he was not ready for trial as he now claims.

This court believes the implication of CPL 580.20 (art. IV, subd. [e]) is that an indictment can be dismissed if trial is not had only in a case where a defendant himself is also ready for trial. The court believes this section implies that all motions on behalf of the defendant must have been concluded and the defendant himself is prepared for trial and is brought into a State court for this purpose.

This court could have retained him here and given him a trial in December of 1972 had he not brought on several motions to the indictment. This defendant cannot take advantage of his own actions so as to rely upon the strict construction of the above-referred to section. The defendant is urging an impractical and unduly harsh interpretation of the statute and his literal interpretation would limit the appearance of defendants in State courts for the purpose of pretrial motions and procedures.

Accordingly, the defendant’s petition is dismissed.
Joseph Howard DAVIS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9657

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 6724

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DESHAWN MARCUS KING , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. ( 5:13

- cr - 00296

- BO

- 2 ; 5:17

- cv - 00039

- BO )

Submitted : August 25, 2020 Decided: August 28, 2020

Before KING and AGEE , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Remanded by un published per curiam opinion

. Deshawn Marcus King , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Deshawn Marcus King seeks to appeal the district court’s March 6, 2020 , order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party in a civil case, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days
after the en try of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
Because King is incarcerated, the notice is considered filed as of the date it was properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988). The record does not conclusively establish that King provided a notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing on or before May 5, 2020

. Accordingly, we remand the case for the limited pu rpose of allowing the district court to make this finding and to determine whether King timely noted an appeal under Rule 4(c)(1) and Houston

. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration.
REMANDED
No. 6:23-cv-00310

Catherine V. Fanciullo,

Plaintiff,

v.

Botie Hillhouse

Defendant.

ORDER 

Plaintiff Catherine V. Fanciullo, proceeding pro se, filed this 

lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to 

United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love. 

On September 13, 2023, the magistrate judge issued a report 

recommending that plaintiff’s lawsuit be dismissed, without 

prejudice, for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and comply with a court 

order. Doc. 7. A copy of this report was sent to the address plaintiff 

provided. To date, plaintiff has not filed objections. A review of the 

mail tracking system shows that the mail was unclaimed on October 

3, 2023. 

When there have been no timely objections to a magistrate 

judge’s report and recommendation, the court reviews it only for 

clear error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 

1420 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Having reviewed the magistrate 

judge’s report, and being satisfied that it contains no clear error, the 

court accepts its findings and recommendation. Plaintiff’s lawsuit is 

dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute and comply 

with a court order. All pending motions are denied as moot.

So ordered by the court on November 17, 2023.

J. CAMPBELL BARKER

United States District Judge

Case 6:23-cv-00310-JCB-JDL Document 9 Filed 11/17/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 19
AO 120 (Rev. 08/10) 

TO: Mail Stop 8

Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

P.O. Box 1450

Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

REPORT ON THE

FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN

ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR

TRADEMARK

In Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been

filed in the U.S. District Court on the following

G Trademarks or G Patents. ( G the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.):

DOCKET NO. DATE FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

PATENT OR

TRADEMARK NO.

DATE OF PATENT 

OR TRADEMARK HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

In the above—entitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:

DATE INCLUDED INCLUDED BY

G Amendment G Answer G Cross Bill G Other Pleading

PATENT OR

TRADEMARK NO.

DATE OF PATENT 

OR TRADEMARK HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

In the above—entitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgement issued:

DECISION/JUDGEMENT

CLERK (BY) DEPUTY CLERK DATE

Copy 1—Upon initiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3—Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director

Copy 2—Upon filing document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Case file copy

Case 2:23-cv-00583-JRG Document 2 Filed 12/08/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 94
Luis Arnaldo BAEZ, Petitioner v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division

No. 19-5

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.