alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-4.31



 Exhibit 4.31 

English Translation 
  

 
 Power of Attorney 

The Company, Beijing Changyou Star Digital Technology Co., Ltd., a citizen/registered limited liability company in the People’s Republic of China
(hereinafter referred to as “China”), has a company registration number 110107019384580, and holds 100% equity of Beijing Guanyou Gamespace Digital Technology Co., Ltd. (the “Guanyou Gamespace”) as Guanyou Gamespace’s
shareholder. The Company again agrees to and irrevocably authorizes the person designated by the board of directors of Beijing Changyou Gamespace Software Technology Co.,Ltd. (the “ Gamespace “) from time to time in the form of a written
resolution (the “Trustee”) to exercise rights as follows within the term hereof: 
 Authorize the Trustee as the Company’s sole and exclusive
agent, to exercise on behalf of the Company, all the shareholders’ rights available to the Company according to Chinese laws and Guanyou Gamespace’s articles of association (the present and as revised from time to time), including but not
limited to: the right to propose a shareholders’ meeting (if applicable), accept any notice on the convening and proceedings of a shareholders’ meeting (if applicable), attend the shareholders’ meeting of Guanyou Gamespace and
exercise voting rights at the same (if applicable, including but not limited to nomination and election or appointment of Gamease’s directors, general manager, chief financial officer and other senior officers, decision on dividend, etc.), make
any shareholder’s decision, decide to sell or transfer its equity in Guanyou Gamespace in whole or in part, etc. 
 The above authorization is subject
to the Trustee’s employment by Gamespace or Gamespace’s affiliates. Once the Trustee resigns from Gamespace or its affiliates or Gamespace’s board of directors terminates the above authorization in the form of a resolution in writing
and with Gamespace’s written notice, the Company’s authorization will lose effect immediately and the Company will specify/authorize the new trustee nominated by Gamespace’s board of directors in the form of a written resolution to
exercise all the shareholders’ rights available to the Company. 
 The term hereof is the same as that of the Business Agreement signed by and among
Gamespace, Guanyou Gamespace and other parties on July 6, 2015. Where the above Business Agreement is terminated early or delayed in accordance with its terms, the Power of Attorney and the Business Agreement will terminate at the same time, or at
the same time be extended to the extent that they are extended by the same period. Within the term hereof, the Power of Attorney shall not be modified or terminated without the written consent of Gamespace. 

Beijing Changyou Star Digital Technology Co., Ltd. (seal) 

July 6, 2015
Exhibit 23.1



            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We hereby consent to the Incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-92326, 333-117148 and 333-118728) of Motient
Corporation and Subsidiaries of our report dated July 2, 2004, relating to the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule, which report
is included in this amended annual report on Form 10-K/A of Motient Corporation
and Subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2003.


/s/ FREIDMAN LLP
----------------


East Hanover, New Jersey
May 23, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's audited Consolidated Statement of Operations, Consolidated Balance
Sheet, and Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows, in each case for the Year ended
December 31, 1999, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          51,474
<SECURITIES>                                   141,619
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,594
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,225
<INVENTORY>                                     28,616
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               220,294
<PP&E>                                         308,551
<DEPRECIATION>                                 192,035
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 809,948
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           81,645
<BONDS>                                        477,610
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           485
<OTHER-SE>                                    (17,711)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   809,948
<SALES>                                         23,418
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                91,071
<CGS>                                           29,527
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  162,246
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               153,217
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              65,928
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (318,799)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (318,799)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (318,799)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (12,132)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (330,931)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (8.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (8.33)


</TABLE>
### §3716. Critical industries

#### (a) Identification of industries and development of plan

The Secretary shall—

(1) identify those civilian industries in the United States that are necessary to support a robust manufacturing infrastructure and critical to the economic security of the United States; and

(2) list the major research and development initiatives being undertaken, and the substantial investments being made, by the Federal Government, including its research laboratories, in each of the critical industries identified under paragraph (1).

#### (b) Initial report

The Secretary shall submit a report to the Congress within 1 year after February 14, 1992, on the actions taken under subsection (a).

(Pub. L. 102–245, title V, §504, Feb. 14, 1992, 106 Stat. 24.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Subsec. (c) of this section, which required the Secretary to annually submit to Congress an update of the report submitted under subsec. (b) of this section, terminated, effective May 15, 2000, pursuant to section 3003 of Pub. L. 104–66, as amended, set out as a note under section 1113 of Title 31, Money and Finance. See, also, page 52 of House Document No. 103–7.

Section was enacted as part of the American Technology Preeminence Act of 1991, and not as part of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 which comprises this chapter.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1
                            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 Annual Report of Regent Communications, Inc. (the
"Registrant") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Terry S. Jacobs, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted 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 results of operations of the
Registrant.

                                               /s/ Terry S. Jacobs
                                               -------------------

                                               Terry S. Jacobs
                                               Chief Executive Officer

March 27, 2003
§ 131.80 FERC Form No. 556, Certification of qualifying facility (QF) status for a small power production or cogeneration facility. ( a ) *Who must file.* Any person seeking to certify a facility as a qualifying facility pursuant to sections 3(17) or 3(18) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 796(3)(17), (3)(18), unless otherwise exempted or granted a waiver by Commission rule or order pursuant to § 292.203(d), must complete and file the Form of Certification of Qualifying Facility (QF) Status for a Small Power Production or Cogeneration Facility, FERC Form No. 556. Every Form of Certification of Qualifying Status must be submitted on the FERC Form No. 556 then in effect and must be prepared in accordance with the instructions incorporated in that form.
( b ) *Availability of FERC Form No. 556.* The currently effective FERC Form No. 556 shall be made available for download from the Commission's Web site.
( c ) *How to file a FERC Form No. 556.* All applicants must file their FERC Forms No. 556 electronically via the Commission's eFiling Web site.
[Order 732, 75 FR 15965, Mar. 30, 2010]
## United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________
No. 21

- 2423

___________________________
United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.
Taylor Grant

Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha

____________
Submitted: April 1, 2022 Filed: April 6, 2022 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ _

PER CURIAM.

Taylor Grant appeals after a jury convicted him of assault resulting in serious bodily injury in Indian country, and the district court 1 imposed a Guidelines

- range sentence. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 129 1, this court affirms.

1 The Honorable Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.-2- On appeal, Grant argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove he was responsible for the victim’s injuries, and challenges the sentence as substantively
unreasonable. This court finds no basis for reversal. The evidence at t ria l—
i ncluding the victim’s direct testimony that she recalled Grant hitting her in the head on two separate occasions during the period in question, and other circumstantial evidence to support the inference that Grant was the assailan t—w as sufficient to support Grant’s convictions. See United States v. Littlewind , 595 F.3d 876, 881

- 82, 884 (8th Cir. 2010) (jury verdict must be upheld “if any rational interpretation of the evidence, regardless of countervailing evidence, would allow a reasonable

- minded ju ry to conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”; this court may not weigh the evidence or assess credibility of witnesses, rather, it must presume that triers of fact resolved any conflict in government’s favor); United States v. Erdman , 953 F.2d 387, 389 (8th Cir. 1992) (conviction may be based on circumstantial as well as direct evidence).

T he sentence was not substantively unreasonable, as the record shows the district court considered the record, the parties’ sentencing memoranda and oral arguments, and Grant’s motion for a variance; and discussed some of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Feemster , 572 F.3d 455, 461

- 62, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (substantive reasonableness of sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant f actor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factor); see also United States v. Gray , 533 F.3d 942, 944

- 46 (8th Cir. 2008) (if district court references some § 3553(a) factors, this court is ordinarily satisfied it was aware of them al l); cf. United States v. St. Claire

, 831 F.3d 1039, 1043 (8th Cir. 2016) (within

- Guidelines sentence is accorded presumption of substantive reasonableness on appeal).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________
Editorial Note on Part 28
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 28 appear at 76 FR 76873, Dec. 9, 2011.

§ 28.124 Review of arbitration awards. ( a ) *Filing an exception.* ( 1 ) Either party to arbitration, conducted pursuant to a grievance procedure under a collective bargaining agreement, may file with the Board an exception to the arbitrator's award rendered pursuant to the arbitration.
( 2 ) The time limit for filing an exception to an arbitration award is 30 days from the service of the award on the filing party.
( 3 ) An opposition to the exception may be filed by a party within 30 days after the service of the exception.
( 4 ) A copy of the exception and any opposition shall be served on the other party.
( b ) *Content of exception.* An exception must be a dated, self-contained document which sets forth in full: ( 1 ) A statement of the grounds on which review is requested;
( 2 ) Evidence or rulings bearing on the issues before the Board;
( 3 ) Arguments in support of the stated grounds, together with specific reference to the pertinent documents and citations of authorities;
( 4 ) A legible copy of the award of the arbitrator and legible copies of other pertinent documents; and
( 5 ) The name and address of the arbitrator.
( c ) *Grounds for review.* ( 1 ) The Board will review an arbitrator's award to which an exception has been filed to determine if the award is deficient— ( i ) Because it is contrary to any law, rule or regulation; or
( ii ) On other grounds similar to those applied by Federal courts in private sector labor-management relations.
( 2 ) The Board will not consider an exception where: ( i ) The award relates to an action based on unacceptable performance covered under 5 U.S.C. 4303;
( ii ) The award relates to a removal, suspension for more than 14 days, reduction in grade, reduction in pay, or furlough of 30 days or less covered under 5 U.S.C. 7512; or
( iii ) the exception is based on a GAO rule which was not introduced into the record submitted to the arbitrator.
( d ) *Board decision.* The Board shall issue its decision and order taking such action and making such recommendations concerning the award as it considers necessary, consistent with applicable laws, rules, or regulations.
§ 2.32 Personnel qualifications. ( a ) It shall be the responsibility of the research facility to ensure that all scientists, research technicians, animal technicians, and other personnel involved in animal care, treatment, and use are qualified to perform their duties. This responsibility shall be fulfilled in part through the provision of training and instruction to those personnel.
( b ) Training and instruction shall be made available, and the qualifications of personnel reviewed, with sufficient frequency to fulfill the research facility's responsibilities under this section and § 2.31.
( c ) Training and instruction of personnel must include guidance in at least the following areas: ( 1 ) Humane methods of animal maintenance and experimentation, including: ( i ) The basic needs of each species of animal;
( ii ) Proper handling and care for the various species of animals used by the facility;
( iii ) Proper pre-procedural and post-procedural care of animals; and
( iv ) Aseptic surgical methods and procedures;
( 2 ) The concept, availability, and use of research or testing methods that limit the use of animals or minimize animal distress;
( 3 ) Proper use of anesthetics, analgesics, and tranquilizers for any species of animals used by the facility;
( 4 ) Methods whereby deficiencies in animal care and treatment are reported, including deficiencies in animal care and treatment reported by any employee of the facility. No facility employee, Committee member, or laboratory personnel shall be discriminated against or be subject to any reprisal for reporting violations of any regulation or standards under the Act;
( 5 ) Utilization of services (e.g., National Agricultural Library, National Library of Medicine) available to provide information: ( i ) On appropriate methods of animal care and use;
( ii ) On alternatives to the use of live animals in research;
( iii ) That could prevent unintended and unnecessary duplication of research involving animals; and
( iv ) Regarding the intent and requirements of the Act.
Exhibit 31.a

I, John P. Manning, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund Limited Partnership;
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:



1. 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;
2. 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
3. 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





1. 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):



1. 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
2. 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:  August 20, 2007 | /s/ John P. Manning        
|---------------------- | ---------------------------
|                       |                            
|                       | John P. Manning            
|                       | Principal Executive Officer
# C_2010113EN.01004902.xml

| 1.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/49

---

Appeal brought on 10 February 2010 by Brigitte Zangerl-Posselt against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 November 2009 in Case F-83/07 Zangerl-Posselt v Commission

(Case T-62/10 P)

2010/C 113/80

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Brigitte Zangerl-Posselt (Merzig, Germany) (represented by: S. Paulmann, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the contested judgment; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the contested judgment;

| — | give judgment itself and, as claimed by the appellant at first instance, annul the decision of the selection board of Competition EPSO/AST/27/06 of 25 July 2007 not to allow the appellant to be admitted to the practical and oral tests of that competition which was, in the meantime, confirmed by the decision of 13 December 2007 on her complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

give judgment itself and, as claimed by the appellant at first instance, annul the decision of the selection board of Competition EPSO/AST/27/06 of 25 July 2007 not to allow the appellant to be admitted to the practical and oral tests of that competition which was, in the meantime, confirmed by the decision of 13 December 2007 on her complaint;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs incurred in connection with both proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs incurred in connection with both proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is directed against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 November 2009 in Case F-83/07 Zangerl-Posselt v Commission, rejecting the appellant’s application.

Zangerl-Posselt

Commission

The appellant bases her appeal on the ground that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law when considering the conditions for admission to Open Competition EPSO/AST/27/06. In that regard, it is alleged inter alia that the Civil Service Tribunal, when deciding whether the appellant possessed a diploma within the meaning of the notice of competition in respect of the competition in question, essentially applied the French version of Article 5(3)(a)(ii) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

Further, according to the appellant, the arguments with which the Civil Service Tribunal sought to invalidate the appellant’s submissions are vitiated by a number of errors of law. In that regard, it is submitted inter alia that findings were made whose unlawfulness is apparent from the case-file, and also the clear sense of the evidence submitted was distorted.

The appellant further claims that the indirect discrimination on grounds of age, of which she complains and which was found to have existed, was held to be justified on grounds which were insufficient and false.

---