alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 13

Ultrapar Participações S.A. and Subsidiaries

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2016 (the
Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Thilo Mannhardt, the Chief Executive Officer, and André Pires de Oliveira Dias, the Chief Financial Officer of Ultrapar
Participações S.A., each certifies that, to the best of their respective knowledge:



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



| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Ultrapar Participações S.A.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

São Paulo, April 28, 2017

ULTRAPAR
PARTICIPAÇÕES S.A.



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|       | 
|By:    |  | /S/ THILO MANNHARDT    
|Name:  |  | Thilo Mannhardt        
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer

São Paulo, April 28, 2017



|       |  |                                               
|------ |  | ----------------------------------------------
|       | 
|By:    |  | /S/ ANDRÉ PIRES DE OLIVEIRA DIAS              
|Name:  |  | André Pires de Oliveira Dias                  
|Title: |  | Chief Financial and Investor Relations Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Fletcher Lee Davis III,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-04643-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: January 12, 2018 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9663 Filed 01/16/18 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. VIRGINIA DALTON, ET AL.

September 26, 1989.

Petition for certification denied. (See 234 *N.J.Super.*128).
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 24

- 00286

- CV

Toinette JONES , Appellant

v. YES HOMESALES EXP, LLC , Appellee
From the County Court at Law No. 3 , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2024CV02061 Honorable Cesar Garcia , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Irene Rios , Justice Beth Watkins , Justice Liza A. Rodriguez , Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 31 , 2024
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION Appellant’s brief was due on May 29, 2024 and was not filed. On June 13, 2024, we ordered appellant to file, by June 28, 2024: (1) her brief; and (2) a written response reasonably explaining her failure to timely file a brief and why appellee was not signi ficantly injured by appellant’s failure to timely file a brief. We cautioned appellant that if she failed to timely file the brief and written response, we would dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a); see also T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal if appellant fails to comply with court order).04

- 24

- 00286

- CV

- 2

- Appellant did not file a brief or otherwise respond to our order. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution.
PER CURIAM
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Nikki Welch","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nikki-d-welchnasa-gov\/","title":"Watch NASA Glenn Intern Stories on 2019 National Intern Day","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"sRa4DjGkoP\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/glenn\/watch-nasa-glenn-intern-stories-on-2019-national-intern-day\/\">Watch NASA Glenn Intern Stories on 2019 National Intern Day<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/glenn\/watch-nasa-glenn-intern-stories-on-2019-national-intern-day\/embed\/#?secret=sRa4DjGkoP\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Watch NASA Glenn Intern Stories on 2019 National Intern Day” — NASA\" data-secret=\"sRa4DjGkoP\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/master-image.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":184}
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

__________________________ 

BETSY FADEN, 

Petitioner,

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, 

Respondent.

__________________________ 

2013-3167

__________________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. NY0752120231-I-1. 

__________________________ 

ON MOTION

__________________________ 

O R D E R

Betsy Faden moves for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis.

Upon consideration thereof, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The motion is granted. 

Case: 13-3167 Document: 4 Page: 1 Filed: 09/18/2013
FADEN v. MSPB 2

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

 Daniel E. O’Toole

 Clerk

s24 

Case: 13-3167 Document: 4 Page: 2 Filed: 09/18/2013
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6839** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. DAVID STUCKEY, a/k/a Shortstop , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence
. Terry L. Wooten , Chief District Judge. ( 4:11

- cr - 00417

- TLW

- 11; 4:14

- cv - 01536

- TLW )

Submitted : September 29 , 2016 Decided: October 4, 2016

Before SHEDD , KEENAN , and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. David Stuckey, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: David Stuckey seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appe alability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2012)
. A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a pri soner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322 , 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Sl ack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stuckey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Stuckey’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the3 materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Michelle Zajac","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/mzajac\/","title":"NASA\u2019s SpaceX Crew-9","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"OOim3BfTeT\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/event\/nasas-spacex-crew-9-launch\/\">NASA\u2019s SpaceX Crew-9<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/event\/nasas-spacex-crew-9-launch\/embed\/#?secret=OOim3BfTeT\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA\u2019s SpaceX Crew-9” — NASA\" data-secret=\"OOim3BfTeT\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/images-assets.nasa.gov\/image\/NHQ202308230007\/NHQ202308230007~large.jpg?w=600&h=1280&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1280}
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RICHARD BIEGENWALD.

April 6, 1984.

Certification to the Superior Court, Law Division granted.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 13

- 00663

- CR

JESSICA KATHLEEN ORE LLANA

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from the 24th District Court of Victoria County , Texas Trial Cause No. 13

- 6

- 27368

- A

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considere d this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. July 16, 2015
EXHIBIT 21

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



|                                          |  |                                          
|----------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------
|Name of Subsidiary                        |  | State or Sovereign Power of Incorporation
|Merix Europe B.V.                         |  | Netherlands                              
|Merix Asia, Inc.                          |  | Oregon                                   
|Merix Caymans Holding Company Limited     |  | Cayman Islands                           
|Merix Caymans Trading Company Limited     |  | Cayman Islands                           
|Merix Singapore Sales Pte. Ltd.           |  | Singapore                                
|Merix Manufacturing (Hong Kong) Ltd.      |  | Hong Kong                                
|Merix U.K. Limited                        |  | United Kingdom                           
|Merix Circuits Corp.                      |  | Canada                                   
|Merix Holding (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.       |  | Singapore                                
|Merix Asia Limited                        |  | Hong Kong                                
|Merix Printed Circuits (Huizhou) Limited  |  | Peoples Republic of China               
|Merix Printed Circuits Technology Limited |  | Peoples Republic of China
#### Harnwell *v.*Miller.

Opinion delivered March 17, 1924.

Dismissal and nonsuit — trial day. — Where plaintiff filed a complaint in equity on October 23, 1922, and defendants filed answers on November 20, 1922, on which day the cause was heard in plaintiff’s absence, and the cause was dismissed, such dismissal was • erroneous, under Crawford & Moses’ Digest, § 1288, providing that trial shall be-had after the pleadings have been completed for 90 days.

Appeal from Lonoke Chancery Court; *John E. Martmeau,*Chancellor;

reversed.

*16*C. P. Harnwell,*for appellant.

*Gray é Morris*and *Chas. A. Walls,*for appellees.

Humphreys, J.

This suit was instituted by appellant against appellees on the 23rd day of October, 1922, in the chancery court of Lonoke County, to set aside a sale of a 320-acre rice farm, made pursuant to a decree of foreclosure in a suit wherein the New England Securities Company was petitioner and' 'appellant and others were respondents.

The sufficiency of the allegations of the bill was not questioned, so it is unnecessary to set out the substance thereof. Suffice it to say that the appellee filed separate answers denying *seriatim*the allegations thereof. The several answers were filed on November 20,1922, the first day of the regular November term of court after the institution of the suit. On the day the answers were filed, and in the absence of appellant, the cause was heard upon the pleadings and testimony introduced by appellees, which resulted in the dismissal of the bill, from which is this appeal.

Appellant contends for a reversal of the decree on the ground that appellees were not entitled thereto under § 1288 of Crawford & Moses’ Digest. The section referred to is as follows: “Actions prosecuted by equitable proceedings shall stand for trial on any day that the court meets in regular.or adjourned session where the pleadings are, or, by the provisions of §§ 1208 and 1209, shall have been completed for ninety days, but where they have not been so completed, though by the provisions of this act they should have been, the party in default, as to time, shall not be entitled to demand a trial.”

In the instant case the pleading’s were not completed until November 20, 1922, on the day the case was tried. Under the .statute the case did not stand for trial until ninety days after the issues were joined. The purpose in allowing this time was to enable the parties to prepare for trial. The trial and decree were-preniature, and without authority of law.

*17The decree is therefore reversed, and the cause is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Howard Zuckerman,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-04221-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Marc J Bern & Partners LLP

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 11/17/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: November 27, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed Name

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9081 Filed 12/04/17 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                       1,257,000
<SECURITIES>                                 3,180,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,402,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   187,000
<INVENTORY>                                    398,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,802,000
<PP&E>                                         914,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 582,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,205,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,425,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        47,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,733,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,205,000
<SALES>                                      5,286,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,384,000
<CGS>                                        4,444,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,948,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,436,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   903,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,533,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .32
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Roberts,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-03644-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: November 27, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9092 Filed 12/04/17 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                               FRESH AMERICA CORP.
                         LIST OF SUBSIDIARY CORPORATIONS

                                December 29, 2000

     Subsidiary                                           State of Incorporation
     ----------                                           ----------------------

     Francisco Acquisition Corp.                             Texas

     Fresh America Arizona, Inc.                             Texas

     Fresh America Florida, Inc.                             Texas

     Allied-Perricone, Inc., formerly known as
     Sam Perricone Citrus Company                            California

     1277649 Ontario Limited                                 Ontario, Canada

     Ontario Tree Fruits Limited                             Ontario, Canada

     Sarfog, Inc.                                            New Jersey

     Fosar, Inc.                                             New Jersey

     Trio Importing (No. 2) Company, Ltd.                    Ontario, Canada