alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.7



 Exhibit 10.7 

Summary of BSPCE 
 Similar to share
options, employee warrants, or BSPCEs, entitle a holder to exercise the warrant for the underlying vested shares at an exercise price per share determined by our board of directors and at least equal to the fair market value of an ordinary share on
the date of grant. Employee warrants may only be issued by growth companies meeting certain criteria. There is no legal limitation to the size of the employee warrant pool under French law. 

Administration. Pursuant to delegations granted at our annual shareholders’ meeting our board of directors determined the recipients, dates
of grant and exercise price of employee warrants, the number of employee warrants to be granted and the terms and conditions of the employee warrants, including the period of their exercisability and their vesting schedule. The board of directors
had the authority to extend the post-termination exercise period of employee warrants after the termination of the employment agreement. 
 Employee
Warrants. Our employee warrants were generally granted subject to a four-year vesting schedule under which one-fourth (1/4) of the employee warrants vest upon each anniversary of grant during four years, subject to continued service.
In each case, any warrant which is not exercised before the tenth anniversary of the date of grant will automatically lapse. The term of each employee warrant is ten years from the date of grant or, in the case of death or disability of the
beneficiary during such ten-year period, six months from the death or disability of the beneficiary in accordance with French law. 
 Employee warrants are
not transferable and may not be sold, pledged, assigned, hypothecated, transferred or disposed of in any manner other than by will or by laws of descent or distribution and may be exercised, during the lifetime of the beneficiary, only by the
beneficiary. 
 Change in Control. Employee warrants generally provide that unvested warrants will accelerate in case of a change in
control at any time. 
 Initial Public Offering. Since our initial public offering in France in 2012, we can no longer issue employee
warrants.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-14-00259-CV

Herman Dwayne EVERETT,

Appellant

v.

Dyna Graciela ARREOLA,

Appellee

From the 83rd Judicial District Court, Val Verde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 27559

Honorable Robert Cadena, Judge Presiding1

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE ANGELINI, AND JUSTICE BARNARD

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

AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that appellee, Dyna Graciela Arreola, recover her costs of this 

appeal from appellant, Herman Dwayne Everett.

SIGNED April 29, 2015.

_____________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

1 The Honorable Carl Pendergrass presided over the bench trial. The Honorable Robert Cadena signed the judgment.
# C_2011043EN.01000202.xml

| 11.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 43/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 43/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6088 — HIG Capital/Der Grune Punkt — Duales System Deutschland)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 43/04

On 7 February 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6088. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6088. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Manuel Alba, Press and Communications, (202) 376-8582. 

David P. Blackwood, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 07-980 Filed 2-27-07; 2:30 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D2023-3333

Lower Tribunal No. CF22-000317-XX

_____________________________

MICHELLE ENGLISH,

Appellant, 

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County.

Wm. Bruce Smith, Judge.

September 24, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

TRAVER, C.J., and NARDELLA, J., and LAMBERT, B.D., Associate Judge, 

concur.

Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Sharon Morgan Vollrath, 

Special Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Tayna Alexander, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
**Exhibit 14.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Auditors**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-13008) pertaining tothe VimpelCom 2000 Stock Option Plan of our report dated March 14, 2004 (except for Note 27, as to which the date is March 18, 2004) with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Open Joint Stock Company Vimpel-Communications, included inthe Annual Report (Form 20-F) of Open Joint Stock Company Vimpel-Communications, for the year ended December 31, 2003. 

 

Ernst & Young (CIS) Limited 

Moscow, Russia 

May 6, 2004
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D16-5200

_____________________________

GLOBAL HOOKAH DISTRIBUTORS,

INC.,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND 

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION,

DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC 

BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from a Final Order of the State of Florida, Division of 

Administrative Hearings.

R. Bruce McKibben, Administrative Law Judge.

May 3, 2018

PER CURIAM.

Global Hookah Distributors, Inc., appeals from a final order 

of the Florida Department of Business and Professional

Regulation, which adopted an administrative law judge’s 

recommended order addressing wholesale tax assessments on 

what are called “other tobacco products,” or “OTP.” The order 

denied relief on Global Hookah’s challenge to the Department’s 

policy statement concerning the use of a “best available 

information” process as applied to OTP, which is not challenged 

on appeal. Global Hookah, however, challenges its alternative 
2

claim, which is that the Department’s inclusion of federal excise 

taxes, shipping costs, and other related items was an 

unpromulgated rule for which they are entitled to relief. The 

administrative law judge refused to consider this claim, 

effectively ruling against Global Hookah, despite the fact the 

claim had been successful in a parallel case before the same 

administrative law judge. See Fla. Dep’t of Bus. & Prof'l Reg. v. 

Fla. Bee Distribution, Inc., 205 So. 3d 593 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)

(per curiam affirmance in favor of Florida Bee).

Global Hookah claims it has the right to assert a Florida Bee

theory as well; it says that the refusal to hear its claim—because 

a stay had been entered in Florida Bee pending appeal—was 

improper. Under the circumstances presented, we agree that 

Global Hookah should have been allowed to have its similar claim 

adjudicated on the merits. The refusal to adjudicate Global 

Hookah’s claim amounts to a denial of due process because it 

precludes Global Hookah from potentially prevailing on a valid 

theory of liability upon which a similarly-situated litigant 

(Florida Bee) prevailed. To the extent that Global Hookah can 

show injury arising from the application of an agency policy to its 

operations, enforced via an invalid agency rule, it should be 

entitled to do so. We therefore reverse and remand with 

directions that Global Hookah’s claim based on that in Florida 

Bee be reinstated.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

LEWIS, MAKAR, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Gerald J. Donnini, II, Jospeh C. Moffa, and James F. McAuley of 

Moffa, Sutton, & Donnini, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant.
3

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Elizabeth Teegen, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

MARK WILSON,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 5:11-cv-25-SPM/GRJ

C. E. RICHARDSON, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE comes before the court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report

and Recommendation (doc. 11). The Plaintiff has been furnished a copy and has

been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States

Code, Section 636(b)(1). No objections have been filed. Having considered the

Report and Recommendation, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 11) is

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The case is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

DONE AND ORDERED this thirtieth day of June, 2011.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Senior United States District Judge

Case 5:11-cv-00025-SPM-GRJ Document 12 Filed 06/30/11 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATIONS
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;
 b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;
 c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and
 d)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and
 b)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  By:
    /s/ FRANCIS K. CHANFrancis K. ChanExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-5 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 1 of 8Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-5 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 2 of 8Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-5 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 3 of 8Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-5 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 4 of 8Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-5 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 5 of 8Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-5 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 6 of 8Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-5 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 7 of 8Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-5 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 8 of 8
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

STEVE EMANUEL JONES,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:11-cv-69-MP-GRJ

ALACHUA COUNTY JAIL,

Defendants

____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 20, 2011. Doc. 1. 

Plaintiff failed to file service copies, a filing fee, or a motion to proceed as a pauper. On

May 18, 2011, Plaintiff requested appointment of counsel. Doc. 3. This Court’s Order

of May 27, 2011 denied Plaintiff’s request for counsel. In the same Order, the Court

directed Plaintiff to either pay the $350.00 filing fee or move for leave to proceed as a

pauper, on or before June 10, 2011. Doc. 4. Plaintiff has failed to comply with the

Court’s directive and has not paid the filing fee or moved to proceed as a pauper. 

Accordingly, for these reasons, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this cause

should be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with a court

order.

At Gainesville, Florida, this 15th day of July, 2011.

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-00069-MP-GRJ Document 5 Filed 07/15/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), a party may file specific, written objections to

the proposed findings and recommendations within 14 days after being served with a

copy of this report and recommendation. A party may respond to another party’s

objections within 14 days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific

objections limits the scope of review of proposed factual findings and

recommendations.

Case No: 1:11-cv-69-MP-GRJ

Case 1:11-cv-00069-MP-GRJ Document 5 Filed 07/15/11 Page 2 of 2
|     |                                                                                                                                                        |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 L3Harris as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report. |

|                          |
|--------------------------|
|                          |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Date: March 3, 2020 |   |   |   | /s/ Jesus Malave Jr. |
|                     |   |   |   | Name: |   | Jesus Malave Jr. |
|                     |   |   |   | Title: |   | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-15-00450-CV

In re Edwin Darnell Williams, Jr.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM BASTROP COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator Edwin Darnell Williams, Jr. filed a document in the trial court titled,

“Plaintiff’s Original Application forWrit of Mandamus.” That document, which he styled asintended

for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, complains that the sentence imposed by the trial court in

its 2009 criminal proceeding against him was void, that his guilty plea was involuntary, and that his

trial counsel did not file a notice of appeal as he requested. The trial court did not take any action

on the document, and the trial court clerk forwarded it to this Court, where it was docketed as a

petition for writ of mandamus.

We have reviewed the document and all the claims raised. The complaints asserted

by relator are the sort of claims that must be raised by way of a post-conviction application for writ

of habeas corpus. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07; see also Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519,

525 n.8 (“the exclusive post-conviction remedy in final felony convictions in Texas courts is through

a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07”); Ater v. Eighth Court of

Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (court of appeals may not enter mandamus

order in criminal proceeding unless there is no adequate remedy at law and sought act is ministerial,
not discretionary; in post-conviction felony proceeding, adequate remedy at law is available by way

of application for writ of habeas corpus); In re Bradley, No. 03-12-00744-CV, 2013 WL 150284,

at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 9, 2013, orig. proceeding) (inmate filed petition for writ of mandamus

seeking to have conviction set aside as void; this Court held that relief sought “amounts to relief

that is available through a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to article 11.07 of the code of criminal

procedure” and that “this Court is without jurisdiction to grant relief in such cases”).

1

We dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction. See Bradley,

2013 WL 150284, at *1.

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Bourland

Filed: August 26, 2015

Relator states in his petition that he sought habeas relief and was denied, but that does not 1

mean that we somehow now have jurisdiction and may grant relief that the court of criminal appeals

has already denied.

2
Presidential Documents

7819 

Federal Register 

Vol. 72, No. 33 

Tuesday, February 20, 2007 

Title 3— 

The President 

Memorandum of February 15, 2007 

Assignment of Functions Relating to the Transfer of a Ship 

to the Government of Greece 

Memorandum for the Secretary of Transportation [and] Secretary of State 

By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the 

United States, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and 

section 1019 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) (the ‘‘Act’’), I hereby assign to 

the Secretary of Transportation the functions of the President under section 

1019 of the Act. The Secretary of Transportation should consult the Secretary 

of State as appropriate in the performance of such functions. 

The Secretary of Transportation is authorized and directed to publish this 

memorandum in the Federal Register. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, February 15, 2007. 

[FR Doc. 07–786 

Filed 2–16–07; 11:24 am] 

Billing code 4910–62–M 


erjones on PRODPC74 with NOTICES2GWBOLD.EPS</GPH>
# Certification of Rescission of North Korea's Designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism 

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State 

                    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and consistent with section 6(j)(4)(B) of the Export Administration Act of 1979, Public Law 96-72, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)), and as continued in effect by Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 66                     *FR*                     44025, I hereby certify, with respect to the rescission of the determination of January 20, 1988, regarding North Korea that:                 

(i) the Government of North Korea has not provided any support for international terrorism during the preceding 6-month period; and 

(ii) the Government of North Korea has provided assurances that it will not support acts of international terrorism in the future. 

This certification shall also satisfy the provisions of section 620A(c)(2) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, Public Law 87-195, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2371(c)), and section 40(f)(1)(B) of the Arms Export Control Act, Public Law 90-629, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2780(f)). 

                    You are authorized and directed to report this certification and the attached memorandum justifying the rescission to the Congress and to arrange for the publication of this certification in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                 

[FR Doc. 08-1404

Billing code 4710-10-P
**Exhibit 32**

ISONICS CORPORATION

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350Principal Executive Officer

To my knowledge: the annual report onForm 10-KSB for the year ended April 30, 2006, containing financial statementsfor the year then ended, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)of the Securities Act of 1934; and the information contained in the Form 10-KSBfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Isonics Corporation for the years presented.

July 26, 2006

 
| /s/ James E. Alexander               |   |   |
|--------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| James E.  Alexander, Chief Executive |   |   |
| Officer                              |   |   |

 

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350Principal Financial Officer

To my knowledge: the annual report on Form10-KSB for the year ended April 30, 2006, containing financial statements forthe year then ended, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) ofthe Securities Act of 1934; and the information contained in the Form 10-KSBfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Isonics Corporation for the years presented.

July 26, 2006

 
| /s/ John Sakys                      |   |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| John Sakys, Chief Financial Officer |   |   |

 

----