alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.10

(Summary)

LEASE

Parties:

JTC Corporation (the Lessor)

UNITED MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION (the Lessee)

Leased Premises:

The land containing 83,152 square meters, land located at Pte lot no. A20519/A20519(a) at Pasir Ris Wafer
Fab Park, Singapore.

Lease Term:

a. A
license for 2 years from 1 April 2001 for you to carry out the necessary construction and installation to set up a factory in accordance with the terms of this offer.

b. A lease of the land and factory building for an initial terms of 30 years with effect from 1 April 2001 and an option for a further term of 30 years subject to:



| | a. | A minimum investment of S$1,565,000,000.00 on plant and machinery; (Declared P&M Investment)
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | b. | Develop the land in accordance with the Wafer Fab Parks Planning and Design Guidelines, all within 2 years of 1 April 2001 and compliance with all the other terms and
conditions of this offer
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consideration:

From 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 the annual license fee/rent will be at the rate of S24.00 per square metre per annum.

On 1 April 2002 and 1 April of every year thereafter until 2006, there shall be an annual fixed license fee/rent increase of 4% over the annual fixed license fee/rent for each immediately preceding year. On
1 April 2006 and 1 April of every year thereafter, the annual license fee/rent will be revised to a rate on the then prevailing market rent but the increase, if any, shall not exceed 5.5% of the annual license fee/rent for each immediately
preceding year.

The annual license fee/rent is due and payable quarterly in advance
on the 1stday of the months of January, April, July and October in each year, without demand.

Fees, Costs and Expenses:

a. The lessee shall pay stamp
duty, survey fees and the cost for the preparation of legal documents.

b. All terms, conditions, stipulations and obligations required
under this offer to be performed or observed by lessee shall be done at lessees cost and expense, whether expressly stated or not.

c.
Originally, the Commissioner of Stamp Duties required the letter of acceptance to be submitted to the Stamp Duty Office for stamping within 14 days. However, with the Minister of Finances Off Budget Measures announcement on 29 June 1998,
stamping may now be deferred until the Building Agreement is issued.

Amount payable:

Total payable inclusive GST: SGD$129,134.05



1



---

Full Terms and Conditions:

The above constitutes the full terms and conditions governing this offer and no terms or representation or otherwise, whether express or implied, shall form part of this offer other than what is contained herein. Any
variation, modification, amendment, deletion, addition or otherwise of the terms of this offer shall not be enforceable unless reduced in writing and signed by both parties.



2
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Western Ohio
Financial Corporation (the Company) for the quarterly period ending March 31,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, John W. Raisbeck, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, 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 result of operations of
the Company. Date:
May 15, 2004
    
    /s/ John W. RaisbeckJohn W. Raisbeck, Chief Executive Officer
 In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Western Ohio
Financial Corporation (the Company) for the quarterly period ending March 31,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Robert A. Kuehl, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, 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 result of operations of
the Company. Date:
May 15, 2004
    
    /s/ Robert A. KuehlRobert A. Kuehl, Chief Financial Officer
 This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. 25.
#### S. L. North & Co. v. T. A. Lambert et al.

(No. 2089.)

Appeal from Delta County.

Templeton & Templeton, counsel for appellants.

No appearance for appellee.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§ 53. *Conclusions of trial judge; party entitled to have same prepared and filed in the record upon request made therefor within a reasonable time; reasonable time in such case.*This case was tried by the judge without a jury, and judgment rendered against appellants. On the same day that judgment was rendered, appellants’ motion for new trial was overruled, and thereupon appellants requested the judge to state in writing his conclusions of law and fact, which request the judge refused, upon the ground that the same was not made until after judgment was rendered and motion for new trial overruled. It further appears that the request was made immediately after the motion for new trial was overruled, and that the term of the court continued for ten days thereafter, and during said time appellants frequently urged a compliance with said request. ' *Held:*Under the law appellants were entitled to have such request granted. It was made in a reasonable time after the trial, and the fact that it was made after their motion for new trial had been overruled furnishes no reason for infusing it. [2 W. Con. Rep. §§ 224, 175.]

§ 54. *Statement of facts; party's right to a.*Immediately after appellants’ motion for a new trial was overruled, they gave notice of appeal, and prepared and presented their statement of facts. Counsel for appellees would not agree to said statement, and prepared a statement also. The two statements were then presented to the judge, with the request that he prepare and certify *78a true and correct statement of facts. This duty the judge -failed to perform. Held, reversible error. [2 W. Con. Rep. § 824.]

December 2, 1885.

Reversed and remanded.
#### Richard LAY v. Robert TANNER, et al.

No. 2009-CI-2821.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 17, 2010.

In re Lay, Richard; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 98501-C; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 CW 1096.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.
#### Edwin WAGNER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D09-2989.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 24, 2011.

*925James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Judith Ellis, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Katherine Coombs Cline, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm without prejudice to Edwin Wagner’s right, if any, to file a timely motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

NORTHCUTT, DAVIS, and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.
No. 76-5808.

#### Del Guzzi *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.,
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2192

STEPHEN M. WRIGHT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

PERRYVILLE INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC,

Plaintiff,

versus

RONALD J. DRESCHER,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

UNITED STATES TRUSTEE FOR THE DISTRICT OF

MARYLAND,

Trustee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA04-1170-CCB; BK-01-59530)

Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 1, 2005

Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.
- 2 -

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen M. Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald J. Drescher, Appellee

Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Stephen M. Wright appeals from the district court’s

orders dismissing his appeal from three bankruptcy court orders for

failure to comply with Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8006, and denying his

motions for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the

district court’s orders and find no reversible error and no abuse

of discretion. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8001(a); In re SPR Corp., 45

F.3d 70, 74 (4th Cir. 1995); In re Serra Builders, Inc., 970 F.2d

1309, 1311 (4th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. Perryville Inv. Group, LLC v.

Drescher, Nos. CA-04-1170-CCB; BK-01-59530 (D. Md. Aug. 11, 2004 &

June 23, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Daniel MICHEL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D10-1126.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 8, 2010.

Daniel Michel, in proper person.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Magaly Rodriguez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before GERSTEN and SUAREZ, JJ„ and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See *Napolitano v. State,*875 So.2d 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004).
#### In the Matter of the SUCCESSION of Bernice Mae DAVID.

No. 2011-C-0501.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 25, 2011.

In re David, Donald Ray; —Other; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of W. Baton Rouge, 18th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 6652; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA1316.

Denied.
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, B. James Rubin, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Tripos, Inc.;

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

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

4.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

	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)	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

	c)	disclosed in this quarterly 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

5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

	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.

Date:  November 12, 2003

 

     /s/ B. James Rubin
     B. James Rubin
#### Miguel FLORES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D10-1349.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 20, 2011.

Miguel Flores, Arcadia, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jeanine M. Germanowiez, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s order denying appellant’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. The factual basis for the plea in this case did not establish actual possession of the firearm which is necessary for the three-year mandatory minimum to apply. *Dawkins v. State,*923 So.2d 520 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); § 775.087(2)(a)l, Fla. Stat. (2001). The face of the record shows that appellant was in constructive, not actual, *438possession of the firearm. We reverse and remand for the trial court to strike the mandatory minimum term from the sentence imposed on the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon count. Resen-tencing is not required, and appellant need not be present for this ministerial sentence correction.

*Reverse and remand with directions to strike the three-year firearm mandatory minimum.*

WARNER, TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT MARCH 31, 1999 (UNAUDITED) AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 (UNAUDITED)
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,099
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,072
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (940)
<INVENTORY>                                     22,438
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,449
<PP&E>                                          26,641
<DEPRECIATION>                                (12,465)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  63,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,639
<BONDS>                                         13,851
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            59
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,193
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    63,200
<SALES>                                         36,034
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                40,420
<CGS>                                           24,622
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,248
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 430
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,112
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,112
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,112
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19
<FN>
<F1>PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS AND INVENTORY PROVISION INCLUDED IN TOTAL
COSTS.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Kevin HIGGINS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D11-3937.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 31, 2011.

Kevin Higgins, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED. *See Baker v. State,*878 So.2d 1236 (Fla.2004).

BENTON, C.J., LEWIS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 23.1

LOGO

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-112947 and No. 333-155370) and Form S-3 (No.
333-139895) of Bay Banks of Virginia, Inc. and subsidiaries of our report, dated March 30, 2010, relating to our audit of the consolidated financial statements, included in and incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bay
Banks of Virginia, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2009.

LOGO

Winchester, Virginia

March 30, 2010
#### STATE ex rel. Preston G. DEMOUCHETTE, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2011-KH-0161.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 2, 2011.

In re Demouchette Jr., Preston G.;— Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Acadia, 15th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 31681; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 11-44.

Denied.
#### Reynold Jean LOUIS, Appellant, v. LaSALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Appellee.

No. 3D10-551.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 2, 2011.

Save My Home Law Group and Carol C. Asbury, for appellant.

Clarke Silverglate & Campbell, Karen H. Curtis, and Dennis M. Campbell, Miami, for appellee.

Before GERSTEN, SUAREZ, and CORTINAS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See*Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b); *Techvend, Inc. v. Phoenix Network, Inc.,*564 So.2d 1145, 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1280

ADELINE B. BENJAMIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ANN VENEMAN, Secretary, United States

Department of Agriculture,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge.

(8:05-cv-00175-PJM)

Submitted: February 14, 2007 Decided: March 8, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis J. Karpel, Richard J. Link, Jr., KARPEL & LINK, Silver

Spring, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States

Attorney, Ariana W. Arnold, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Adeline B. Benjamin appeals the district court’s order

granting summary judgment in favor of her employer, the U.S.

Department of Agriculture, on her claims of retaliation and hostile

work environment brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000). Summary

judgment is appropriate only if, viewing the evidence in the light

most favorable to the non-moving party, there are no genuine issues

of material fact in dispute and the moving party is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477

U.S. 242, 255 (1986); Evans v. Technologies Applications & Serv.

Co., 80 F.3d 954, 958 (4th Cir. 1996). We have thoroughly reviewed

the briefs and joint appendix and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court

on January 30, 2006. (JA 1758-1770). Benjamin v. Veneman, No.

8:05-cv-00175-PJM (D. Md. Jan. 31, 2006). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decision making process.

AFFIRMED
#### Max Elser et al. v. W. T. Pierce.

(No. 3356.)

Appeal from Wise County.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 737. *Pleading; petition in suit for exemplary damages for wrongful, etc., suing out an attachment must allege want of probable cause.*Appellee recovered judgment against appellants for $600 actual and $395 exemplary damages for the wrongful, etc., seizure of certain goods under an attachment. The petition did not allege that the attachment was sued out “without probable cause,” and upon this ground the appellants excepted to it specially in so far as it claimed exemplary damages, which exception was overruled. *Held,*the special exception should have been sustained. ‘ ‘ Malice and want of probable cause must both concur to support a charge of malicious prosecution. Neither is alone sufficient. If it were malicious and unfounded, but there was probable cause for suing out the attachment, nothing more than the actual damages can be recovered.” [W. & W. Con. Rep. §§ 33, 38; Culberson v. Cabeen, 29 Tex. 247.]

*648May 27, 1885.

§ 738. *Actual damages; what are.*“Actual damages which may be recovered for wrongfully suing out the writ of attachment are such only as are the natural, proximate and legal result or consequence of the wrongful act.” [W. & W. Con. Rep. § 1216; Wallace v. Finberg, 46 Tex. 35; Drake on Attach. § 175.]

§ 739. *Erroneous charge.*The court, in its charge to the jury on the subject of exemplary damages, omitted to instruct as to an essential element of such damages, viz., a want of probable cause for suing out the writ, and the charge was therefore materially erroneous.

Reversed and remanded.
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, Pehong Chen, the Chief Executive Officer of BroadVision, Inc. (the
"Company"), and Shin-Yuan Tzou, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:
  1. The
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, and
to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the "Periodic Report"),
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 2. The
information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
 
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has set his hands hereto as of the 8thday
of May, 2009.


/s/  Pehong
      ChenPehong
      Chen
                Chief
      Executive Officer
  /s/  Shin-Yuan
      TzouShin-Yuan
      Tzou
                Chief
      Financial Officer




This
certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of BroadVision, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.