alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T OM AR M AN UEL M ON ARRE Z GU E R R E R O, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 11- 70704 A ge nc yN o. A 096- 694- 812 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d A ugus t8, 2012 ** B efo re: A L A R C Ó N , B E R Z O N , an dIK U T A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. O m arM anue l M onarr e z G ue rr e r o, ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons pro se f or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l f r om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f or 

# FI LED AU G 14 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 70704 2 cancel l at i on of re m ov al . W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew f o rs ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e th e a g e n c y ’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s , G ut i errez v . Mukasey , 521 F . 3 d1 1 1 4 , 1 1 1 6 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) , an dwe d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. S ub st ant i alevi dence s up po rt s the agency’ s det erm i nat i on thatM on arre z G uerr er o fai l ed t o est abl i sh the re qu i si t e t en ye ar s of c on t i nu ou s physi ca l pres ence f orc anc e l l a t i on of

r e m ova l w he r e he r e pe a t e dl yt e s t i f i e d tha the f

i r s te nt e r e d the U ni t ed S t at es on D ec em ber 12, 19 97 , and h e w as se rved w i th a N ot i ce t o A pp ear l es s than t en ye ar s l at er . See 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 b (b )( 1 )( A ). M o n arre z G u erre ro ’s cont ent i on thathe cont i nu ed t o acc rue pre se nce unt i l hi s f i nal hear i ng before the IJ is u n a v a ilin g . Se e i d. § 1 22 9b (d)( 1)(A ) ( peri od of cont i nu ou s physi ca l pres ence ends up on se rvi ce of N ot i ce t o A pp ear) . W e ne e d nota ddr e s s M onarr e z G ue rr e r o’ s c ont e nt i ons c onc e rni ng the r e m a in in g r e q u ir e m e n ts f o rc an c e lla tio n o f

r e m o v a l. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
Exhibit 4.1 2012 10-K






EXHIBIT 4.1


PEOPLES BANCORP INC. ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K
FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2012






PEOPLES BANCORP INC.
138 Putnam Street
Marietta, OH  45750
(740) 373-3155






February 28 ,2013




Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C.  20549




RE:  Peoples Bancorp Inc. - Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012




Ladies and Gentlemen:


Peoples Bancorp Inc., an Ohio corporation, is today filing its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012 (the “Form 10-K”), as executed on February 28 ,2013.


Pursuant to the provisions of Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of SEC Regulation S-K, Peoples Bancorp Inc. hereby agrees to furnish to the SEC, upon request, copies of instruments and agreements defining (i) the rights of holders of Peoples Bancorp Inc.'s long-term debt or (ii) the rights of holders of the long-term debt of one of its consolidated subsidiaries, not being filed or incorporated by reference as an exhibit to the Form 10-K.  Such long-term debt does not exceed 10% of the total assets of Peoples Bancorp Inc. and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis.


Very truly yours,
            
Peoples Bancorp Inc.


/s/ EDWARD G. SLOANE 
Edward G. Sloane
Executive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 124 Filed 10/31/11 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 4139
Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 124 Filed 10/31/11 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 4140
Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 124 Filed 10/31/11 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 4141
Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 124 Filed 10/31/11 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 4142
Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 124 Filed 10/31/11 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 4143
Exhibit 4.31

UNDERTAKING FOR GRANTING  CONVERSION RIGHTS

of

Infineon Technologies AG
Munich, Federal Republic of Germany

To JPMorgan Chase Bank for the benefit of the Noteholders of
Infineon Technologies Holding
B.V., Rotterdam, The Netherlands
€700,000,000
5% Guaranteed Subordinated Convertible Notes
of 2003/2010,
convertible into
ordinary registered shares with no par value (Stückaktien)
of Infineon Technologies AG
(the"Notes").

---

Munich,

June 2,
2003

Infineon
Technologies AG

---

We
hereby accept all of the above declarations for the benefit of the Noteholders.

London,

June 2,
2003

JPMorgan
Chase Bank

---

2

---

QuickLinks
#### The J. Carl Jackson. Hall *v.*The J. Carl Jackson.

*(District Court, S. D. New York.*

December 16, 1886.)

Champerty—“An Obliging Advance” by Proctor—Code Civil Proc. ET. Y. §§ 78, 74

The essential characteristic ingredient of champerty is the intent to promote litigation. Therefore, where proctors in a suit in admiralty, by the arrest of the vessel, and stipulation given for her release, had secured the payment of the demand, and had informed the libelant that the claim was secured. and the latter afterwards, supposing the money had been collected, gave to a third person an order for the amount upon the proctors, and the latter honored and paid the order while the suit was in progress, and before collection, *held,*upon the evidence, that this was not for the purpose of prosecuting the suit, but was an obliging advance only, and did not violate, in letter or in spirit, the statute against champerty and maintenance.

In Admiralty.

*Hyland & Zabriskie,*for libelant.

*Derby & Luques,*for claimant.

*397Brown, J.

The Jackson was prosecuted for a, balance of 850 claimed to be due to the libelant for towing a canal-boat from Buffalo. The facts show, without question, the performance of tho contract for the agreed price of 8100, and that the balance of $50 has not been paid by the respondent, or any part of it. After the filing of the libel, the attachment of the canal-boat, and security given for the claim, the libelant was told by the proctors that the claim had been secured. Subsequently he gave to a third person an order upon the proctors for tho money, and the proctors, at the request of the bearer, honored the order by aii advance of the amount; it being supposed, when the order was given, that the amount had been collected. The proctors stated at tho time they honored the order that they would hold the plaintiff responsible for it if not collected as expected. The respondent claimed that the advance was made by the proctors as a purchase of the claim; and that the further prosecution of the action was in violation of the statute against champerty and maintenance, as contained in sections 73 and 74 of the New York Code of Civil Procedure. Tt is entirely clear, however,, that the essential and characteristic ingredient of these and other statutes on the same subject, namely, the inducement by the proctors to litigation, is here entirely wanting. The transaction, as the-evidence shows, was nothing more than an obliging advance, made by the attorneys upon an order upon them given by tlieir client under a misapprehension. Tho statutes as to champerty and maintenance, neither in letter nor in spirit, cover such a case. *Fowlerv. Callan,*102 N. Y. 395, 399; S. C. 7 N. E. Rep. 169; *Harris*v. *Brisco,*17 Q. B. Div. 504.

The receipt of the bill in full is clearly explained as made prospectively only, and for the purposes of collection. The balance was not paid by the respondents, or by any one in their behalf. The libelant is entitled to a decree for $50, with interest and costs.
Case 1:11-cv-03897-JEI-KMW   Document 71   Filed 06/09/14   Page 1 of 14 PageID: 1812

Case 1:11-cv-03897-JEI-KMW   Document 71   Filed 06/09/14   Page 2 of 14 PageID: 1813

Case 1:11-cv-03897-JEI-KMW   Document 71   Filed 06/09/14   Page 3 of 14 PageID: 1814

Case 1:11-cv-03897-JEI-KMW   Document 71   Filed 06/09/14   Page 4 of 14 PageID: 1815

Case 1:11-cv-03897-JEI-KMW   Document 71   Filed 06/09/14   Page 5 of 14 PageID: 1816

Case 1:11-cv-03897-JEI-KMW   Document 71   Filed 06/09/14   Page 6 of 14 PageID: 1817

Case 1:11-cv-03897-JEI-KMW   Document 71   Filed 06/09/14   Page 7 of 14 PageID: 1818

Case 1:11-cv-03897-JEI-KMW   Document 71   Filed 06/09/14   Page 8 of 14 PageID: 1819

Case 1:11-cv-03897-JEI-KMW   Document 71   Filed 06/09/14   Page 9 of 14 PageID: 1820

Case 1:11-cv-03897-JEI-KMW   Document 71   Filed 06/09/14   Page 10 of 14 PageID: 1821

Case 1:11-cv-03897-JEI-KMW   Document 71   Filed 06/09/14   Page 11 of 14 PageID: 1822

Case 1:11-cv-03897-JEI-KMW   Document 71   Filed 06/09/14   Page 12 of 14 PageID: 1823

Case 1:11-cv-03897-JEI-KMW   Document 71   Filed 06/09/14   Page 13 of 14 PageID: 1824

Case 1:11-cv-03897-JEI-KMW   Document 71   Filed 06/09/14   Page 14 of 14 PageID: 1825
Exhibit 32.1





EXTERRAN PARTNERS, L.P.


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Exterran Partners, L.P. (the “Partnership”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Ernie L. Danner, as Chief Executive Officer of Exterran GP LLC, the general partner of the Partnership’s general partner, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his 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 the Partnership.





/s/ ERNIE L. DANNER


Ernie L. Danner


Chief Executive Officer, Exterran GP LLC


As General Partner of Exterran General Partner, L.P.


As General Partner of Exterran Partners, L.P.





August 5, 2010





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
##### 



Exhibit 12.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT I, B. Rama Raju, certify that:  1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Satyam Computer Services Limited;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 company as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;4.

The companys other certifying officer(s) 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 company 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 company, 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 company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 report any change in the companys internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
companys internal control over financial reporting; and  5.

The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys
auditors and the audit committee of the company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 companys ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the companys internal control over
financial reporting. Dated this April 26, 2005 By:
    /s/ B. Rama RajuManaging Director andChief Executive Officer
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James T. Demetriades, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Annual Report of SeeBeyond Technology Corporation on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
SeeBeyond Technology Corporation.

| |  | By:    |  |                         
| |  | ------ |  | ------------------------
| |  |        |  | /s/ James T. Demetriades
| |  | Name:  |  | James T. Demetriades    
| |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer 

I,
Barry J. Plaga, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of SeeBeyond
Technology Corporation on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of SeeBeyond Technology
Corporation.

| |  | By:    |  |                        
| |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
| |  |        |  | /s/ Barry J. Plaga     
| |  | Name:  |  | Barry J. Plaga         
| |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer

---

QuickLinks
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 ROSA MASTRANTONI,

3 Petitioner-Appellee,

4 v. No. 34,725

5 VINCENT MASTRANTONI,

6 Respondent-Appellant.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY

8 Sylvia Lamar, District Judge

9 Pamela Emsden

10 Santa Fe, NM

11 for Appellee

12 Margaret Kegel

13 Santa Fe, NM 

14 for Appellant

15 Diane M. Garrity

16 Santa Fe, NM

17 Guardian ad Litem
2

1 MEMORANDUM OPINION

2 HANISEE, Judge.

3 {1} Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of

4 proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance has

5 been filed and the time for doing so has expired. 

6 {2} AFFIRMED.

7 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

8 

9 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge

10 WE CONCUR:

11 

12 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 

13 

14 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
#### REFRIGERATION DISCOUNT CORPORATION (a corporation), Plaintiff, v. Albert M. FREIBERG and Betty Freiberg, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 19193.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

Nov. 18, 1955.

*179Newman & Master, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Wilbur Greenberg, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants.

CLARY, District Judge.

The motion presently before the Court for disposition is entitled “Motion to Dismiss”. However, the content of the motion indicates that it was intended as and counsel for the defendants has asked the Court to consider it as a “Motion for More Definite Statement” under Rule 12 (e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.

The first reason advanced in the motion would not, in any event, warrant a dismissal of the action. However, the second reason assigned that the complaint fails to set forth with sufficient definiteness and particularity a claim to which the defendants can properly formulate a responsive pleading is well taken. The complaint indicates that this action in which plaintiff claims $105,695.-89 is based upon undertakings of the defendants to indemnify plaintiff against loss in connection with the assignments by the defendants to the plaintiff of installment lease contracts covering installment sales by the defendants of electrical appliances to numerous retail purchasers. The complaint avers that there are involved in this suit between 600 and 700 such individual transactions. The specimen contracts attached to the complaint show that the monthly installmént payments by the purchasers of the appliances under the installment agreements were to be made directly to the plaintiff and not to or through the defendants. The information as to which of the contracts are in default and the amounts of default appear to be in the present state of the record peculiarly within the knowledge of the plaintiff and not of the defendants. The defendants, therefore, are entitled to be informed as to which of the contracts are in default and the time and amount of defaults, before they should be required to frame a responsive pleading. Philadelphia Retail Jewelers Ass’n v. L. & C. Mayers Co., Inc., D.C., 1 F.R.D. 606.

Order

Accordingly, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that defendants’ “Motion to Dismiss”, considered as a “Motion for More Definite Statement”, be and it is hereby granted, and plaintiff is directed to file a more definite complaint within 30 days from the date of this order.
0

3

6

9

12

15

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Chart 1-17. Increases in employer costs for benefits have 

outpaced gains in wages and salaries since 2000

Percent change from previous year

Benefits

Wages and salaries

NOTE: The Employment Cost Index components are for private-sector workers. 

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Chart 1-17. Increases in employer costs for benefits have 

outpaced gains in wages and salaries since 2000

• In the private sector, benefit costs rose 4.1 percent for the year ending 

December 2005, compared with an increase of 2.5 percent for wages and 

salaries. 

• The cost of benefits typically has risen at a faster pace than wages; although, 

for a period in the late-1990s, growth in the cost of benefits fell below that of 

wages.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

v.

BAHADIR YAHSI,

 

Criminal Action No.: 11-353 (JLL)

ORDER

LINARES, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Notice of Appeal of this Court’s

denial of Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Second Superseding Indictment on Double Jeopardy

Grounds. For the reasons stated in this Court’s corresponding Letter Opinion, this Court finds

that it has been divested of jurisdiction pending appeal. Accordingly,

IT IS on this 5 day of April, 2012, th

ORDERED that this matter be and is hereby STAYED pending appeal of this Court’s

April 2, 2012 Order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss on Double Jeopardy grounds.

SO ORDERED. 

s/ Jose L. Linares 

JOSE L. LINARES

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 590

To direct the Secretary of the Army to convey the remaining water supply 

storage allocation in Rathbun Lake, Iowa, to the Rathbun Regional 

Water Association. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 5, 2003

Mr. LEACH (for himself and Mr. BOSWELL) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of the Army to convey the remaining 

water supply storage allocation in Rathbun Lake, Iowa, 

to the Rathbun Regional Water Association.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. RATHBUN LAKE, IOWA. 

4 (a) CONVEYANCE.—The Secretary of the Army shall 

5 convey the remaining water supply storage allocation in 

6 Rathbun Lake, Iowa, to the Rathbun Regional Water As7 sociation (in this section referred to as the ‘‘Water Asso8 ciation’’). 
2

•HR 590 IH 

1 (b) CONSTRUCTION OF VISITORS CENTER COM2 PLEX.—Notwithstanding the Water Supply Act of 1958 

3 (43 U.S.C. 390b), the Water Association shall pay for the 

4 water supply storage allocation to be conveyed under sub5 section (a) by constructing a regional lighthouse visitors 

6 center complex on Federal lands at Rathbun Lake. 

7 (c) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—Before conveying the 

8 water supply storage allocation under subsection (a), the 

9 Secretary shall enter into an agreement with the Water 

10 Association under which the Water Association shall agree 

11 to—

12 (1) in accordance with designs approved by the 

13 Chief of Engineers, construct a visitors center com14 plex that has a value equal to or greater than the 

15 amount that otherwise would be paid to the Federal 

16 Government for the costs of the water supply stor17 age under the Water Supply Act of 1958 (43 U.S.C. 

18 390b); 

19 (2) be responsible for operating and maintain20 ing the visitors center complex; 

21 (3) pay all operation and maintenance costs al22 located to the water supply storage space; 

23 (4) use any revenues generated at the visitors 

24 center complex that are above those required to op25 erate and maintain or improve the complex to under-
3

•HR 590 IH 

1 take, subject to the approval of the Chief of Engi2 neers, activities that will improve the quality of the 

3 environment in the Rathbun Lake watershed area; 

4 and 

5 (5) such other terms and conditions as the Sec6 retary considers necessary to protect the interests of 

7 the United States.

Æ