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

      ADVISORY AGREEMENTS DATED APRIL 07, 2005 AND APRIL 26, 2005 BETWEEN
                   GREEN STONE INVESTMENT & CONSULTANTS LTD.
                    AND HENAN ZHONGPIN FOOD SHARE CO., LTD.

             Green Stone Investment & Consultants Ltd. ("Green Stone"), a
company based in Beijing, China, with Yousu LIN, Qian WANG and Yunchun WANG as
its principals, is to render financial and management consulting services to
Henan Zhongpin Food Share Co., Ltd. (the "Company"). Such services include
strategic planning, organizational restructuring, assistance in the preparation
of business plans, new business development, improvements on corporate
governance, preparation for financial audits and recruitment of suitable
independent board members on behalf of the Company as well as assisting the
Company in new business development.

         For such services to be rendered, Green Stone Investment & Consultants
Co., Ltd. and its three principals, Yousu LIN, Qian WANG and Yunchun WANG
collectively will receive (1) $100,000.00, (2) 1,500 shares of Falcon Link
Investment Ltd., and (3) a success fee of 1.5% based on new capital to be raised
by the Company due to the efforts of Green Stone will be paid upon the Company's
receipt of such capital.
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ABBYY SOFTWARE HOUSE, et al.

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. C 08-2912 JSW (MEJ)

ORDER AFTER TELEPHONIC

DISCOVERY CONFERENCE RE

DKT. ## 171, 172 

On February 23, 2010, the Court held a telephonic conference regarding the discovery

disputes presented in the parties’ joint discovery dispute letters, filed January 28, 2010 (Dkt. #171),

and February 2, 2010 (Dkt. #172). Pursuant to discussions at February 23 hearing, the Court now

ORDERS as follows.

1) Defendant ABBYY USA SOFTWARE HOUSE (“ABBYY USA”) shall submit a

formal written request to the Russian entity ABBYY Production, requesting that it

produce the disputed source code to ABBYY USA under the terms of the licensing

agreement between the two entities. The formal written request shall contain a

provision requesting that ABBYY Production produce the disputed source code

directly to ABBYY USA, rather than to a third party escrow agent. 

2) Prior to submitting its request to the Russian entity, ABBYY USA shall submit its

proposed request to Plaintiff Nuance Communications, Inc. (“Nuance”) for approval

as to form and content. ABBYY USA shall submit its request to Nuance by February

26, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. If necessary, the parties shall then meet and confer in a good

faith effort to reach an agreement regarding the form and content of ABBYY USA’s

proposed request. 

Case 3:08-cv-02912-JSW Document 179 Filed 02/23/10 Page 1 of 2
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

3) The parties shall then file the proposed request as part of a stipulation and proposed

order for the Court’s approval on March 2, 2010. The parties’ stipulation shall state

that they agree as to the form of the request, and the proposed order shall simply state

that the Court approves of the form of the request. ABBYY USA’s request to the

Russian entity shall not include an order from the Court - it shall be a separate

document.

4) ABBYY USA shall submit its request to the Russian entity within two days of the

filing date of the Court’s order accepting the parties’ stipulation.

Additionally, in light of other matters discussed at the telephonic conference, the Court

further ORDERS the parties to file a proposed protective order by March 5, 2010. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 23, 2010

_______________________________

Maria-Elena James 

Chief United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:08-cv-02912-JSW Document 179 Filed 02/23/10 Page 2 of 2
#### Pearl Shapiro et al., Appellants, v Wilk-Milberg Caterers, Inc., *762et al., Respondents.

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 25, 1976, denying plaintiffs-appellants’ motion for summary judgment and granting defendants’ request to dismiss the complaint and for summary judgment, and judgment entered thereon August 18, 1976, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements, with leave granted plaintiffs-appellants to apply at Special Term to serve a new complaint. The appeal from the order of the same court, entered June 24, 1976, denying plaintiffs-appellants’ motion for reargument is dismissed, without costs and without disbursements. The order and judgment that resulted in summary judgment in favor of the defendants are affirmed for the reasons stated at Special Term. While the order and judgment are correct, it appears that the plaintiffs’ basic grievance is that the defendants conspired to deprive them of property rights and that they may be able to state a cause of action on that theory. We have, therefore, granted them leave to apply to serve a new complaint. An order denying reargument is not appealable *(Dayon v Chemical Bank,*45 AD2d 827). Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Markewich and Lynch, JJ.
### §2333. Transfer of priorities

No priority shall be transferable, except—

(a) a husband and wife may exercise a priority in their joint names;

(b) a religious organization may exercise the priority which would otherwise belong to its priest, minister, or rabbi, regardless of whether that position happens to be filled at the time of the exercise of the priority;

(c) two or more priority holders having a common interest in a building or location may assign their interests to a single assignee; and

(d) the Commission may permit such other transfers as it finds to be fair and equitable.

(Aug. 4, 1955, ch. 543, ch. 4, §43, 69 Stat. 476.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Transfer of Functions

Atomic Energy Commission abolished and functions transferred by sections 5814 and 5841 of this title. See also Transfer of Functions notes set out under those sections.
### §2996l. Reservation of right to repeal, alter, or amend

The right to repeal, alter, or amend this subchapter at any time is expressly reserved.

(Pub. L. 88–452, title X, §1013, as added Pub. L. 93–355, §2, July 25, 1974, 88 Stat. 388.)
Faulk, Scott (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

cody BARRETT <cody.barrett808@gmail.com> 

Monday, November 25, 2013 1:23 PM 

EAS (OST) 

kalaupapa EAS 

Dear Department of Transportation, 

I am writing to support Mokulele Airline's 4-year bid to link Kalaupapa to Kahului, Honolulu, Kapalua, 

and Ho'olehua. Mokulele is the best candidate as they have lower fares, experienced friendly agents, 

frequent, flights, multiple islands and ease of booking via Global Distribution System (Expedia, 

Travelocity, Orbitz, Priceline etc.).lt is important that we have a safe, stable & affordable service to 

Kalaupapa. 

Please select Mokulele to serve Kalaupapa for 4 years. 

Sincerely, Cody Barrett 

1
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

SEPTEMBER 1, 2010

JOHN LEY

 CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-14388

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 09-80036-CR-DMM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus

JOHN GERARD KRANTZ, 

a.k.a. HardThickandJuicy, 

a.k.a. John Smith, 

a.k.a. oohlajgk@yahoo.com, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(September 1, 2010)

Before BLACK, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

J. Rafael Rodriguez, appointed counsel for John Krantz, has filed a motion

to withdraw from further representation on appeal, supported by a brief prepared

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493

(1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s

assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent

examination of the entire record reveals no arguably meritorious issues, counsel’s

motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Krantz’s conviction and sentence are

AFFIRMED.

2
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 243 (Monday, December 20, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75860-75861]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27795]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 04-3809; MB Docket No. 04-67; RM-10856]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Easthampton, MA; Malta, NY; and 
Pittsfield, MA

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In response to a Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 69 FR 16202 
(March 29, 2004) this Report and Order upgrades Channel 289A, Station 
WNYQ(FM), Malta, New York, to Channel 289B1; reallots Channel 288A, 
Station WBEC-FM, Pittsfield, Massachusetts, to Easthampton, 
Massachusetts; and modifies Station WBEC-FM's license accordingly. The 
coordinates for Channel 289B1 at Malta, New York, are 42-58-17 NL and 
73-40-52 WL, with a site restriction of 9.1 kilometers (5.7 miles) east 
of Malta. The coordinates for Channel 288A at Easthampton, 
Massachusetts, are 42-18-52 NL and 72-41-18 WL, with a site restriction 
of 5.5 kilometers (3.4 miles) north of Easthampton.

DATES: Effective January 18, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  R. Barthen Gorman, Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MB Docket No. 04-67, adopted December 1, 2004, and 
released December 3, 2004. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, 445 12th Street, 
SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC, 20554. The document may also be 
purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and 
Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, 
Washington, DC, 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or http://www.BCPIWEB.com. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and 
Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the General Accounting 
Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 
801(a)(1)(A).

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio, Radio broadcasting.

0
Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as 
follows:

PART 73--RADIO BROADCASTING SERVICES

0
1. The authority citation for Part 73 reads as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, and 336.


Sec.  73.202  [Amended]

0
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Massachusetts, 
is amended by removing Channel 288A at Pittsfield, and adding 
Easthampton, Channel 288A.

[[Page 75861]]


0
3. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under New York, is 
amended by removing Channel 289A and by adding Channel 289B1 at Malta.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 04-27795 Filed 12-17-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
### §1973p. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 1973p was editorially reclassified as section 10313 of Title 52, Voting and Elections.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2327

RONALD LEE COOK, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INCORPORATED; ALTRIA GROUP, INCORPORATED; THOMAS CARLYLE, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-576-3-RLW) Submitted: May 22, 2006 Decided: June 8, 2006 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Lee Cook, Appellant Pro Se. King Fitchett Tower, Durward Earl Baggett, IV, WILLIAMS MULLEN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Ronald L. Cook appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to remand and dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and the arguments of the parties, and we affirm the denial of the motion to remand and the dismissal of Cook’s retaliatory discharge claim for the reasons stated by the district court from the bench. (See Hearing Transcript at 14-17). Regarding Cook’s common law tort claims, the district court did not specify a reason for dismissing these claims. However, while the liberal pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) demand only a “short and plain” statement of the claim, a plaintiff must often offer more detail than the bald statement that he has a valid claim of some type against the defendant. Trulock v. Freeh, 275 F.3d 391, 405 (4th Cir. 2001). “The presence [ ] of a few conclusory legal terms does not insulate a complaint from dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) when the facts alleged in the complaint” do not support the legal conclusion. Young v. City of Mount Ranier , 238 F.3d 567, 577 (4th Cir. 2001) (dismissing Fourteenth Amendment claims where complaint alleged deliberate indifference but included no facts to support allegation). In Cook’s complaint, he asserted that his employer committed “grievous” torts by “committing perjury, slander, accusing the plaintiff of filing a false workers compensation- 3 - claim, malingering, ploys, and has allowed Personnel Manager Thomas Carlyle to carry out a personal vendetta.” Cook offered no facts, dates, or details to support his claims either in his complaint, in response to the motion to dismiss, or on appeal. Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not err in dismissing these causes of action. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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
Editorial Note on Part 217
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 217 appear at 68 FR 51362, Aug. 26, 2003.

§ 217.10 Effect of state or local law or other requirements and effect of employment opportunities. ( a ) The obligation to comply with this part is not obviated or alleviated by the existence of any state or local law or other requirement that, on the basis of handicap, imposes prohibitions or limits upon the eligibility of qualified handicapped persons to receive services or to practice any occupation or profession.
( b ) The obligation to comply with this part is not obviated or alleviated because employment opportunities in any occupation or profession are or may be more limited for handicapped persons than for nonhandicapped persons.
#### Ezekiel Asch and Another, Respondents, v. The Hoyt-Messinger Corporation, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Dowling, Page and Merrell, JJ.
Exhibit
10.15


 


FOURTH AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE CONSULTING AGREEMENT


 


 


This Fourth Amendment to
Executive Consulting Agreement is made as of the 1st day of January,
2006, by and between NBTY, Inc. (the “Company”) and RUDOLPH MANAGEMENT
ASSOCIATES, INC., a Florida corporation (“RMA”).


 


WITNESSETH:


 


WHEREAS, the Company and RMA
entered into that certain Executive Consulting Agreement, dated as of January
1, 2002 (as amended by the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, and the Third
Amendment, the “Agreement”);


 


WHEREAS, the term of the
Agreement expires on December 31, 2005 (the “Term”);


 


WHEREAS, the Compensation
Committee of the Company (the “Committee”) met on December 16, 2005, with all
members of the Committee present to consider whether to extend the Term of the
Agreement;


 


WHEREAS, the Committee
decided to extend the Term of the Agreement; and


 


WHEREAS, RMA and ARTHUR
RUDOLPH desire to continue to make their respective services as an Executive
Consultant available to the Company.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration
of the mutual promises hereafter contained and for other good and valuable
consideration, the parties agree as follows:


 


1.             Term.  Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended
and restated to read in its entirety as follows:


 


“1.           Retention.  The Company hereby retains RMA to provide the
services of ARTHUR RUDOLPH and ARTHUR RUDOLPH hereby accepts the engagement of
Executive Consultant from January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006 (the “Term”).”


 

















 


2.             Continuity.
Except as otherwise expressly amended by this Fourth Amendment, the Agreement
shall continue in full force and effect.


 


3.             Governing Law;
Counterparts. This Amendment shall be construed and enforced according to
the laws of the State of New
York.  This Amendment may be executed in
any number of counterparts, each of which shall be considered an original for
all purposes, and all of which when taken together constitute a single
counterpart instrument.


 


IN
WlTNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the day
and year first above written.


 


	
  RUDOLPH MANAGEMENT 

  ASSOCIATES, INC.

  	
  NBTY, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Arthur Rudolph 

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Harvey Kamil

  
	
   

  	
  Arthur Rudolph 

  	
   

  	
  Harvey Kamil

  
	
   

  	
  President

  	
   

  	
  President

  
					



 


 


Agreed and Consented.


 


	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Arthur Rudolph

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  ARTHUR RUDOLPH, individually

  	
   

  
			



 


2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William Lawson Brown, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County, rendered February 19, 1960, after a jury trial, convicting him (under two separate indictments consolidated for trial) of burglary in the third degree and grand larceny in the second degree and burglary in the third degree and petit larceny, and sentencing him to serve a term of two to four years on each indictment; the two terms to run consecutively (Renal Law, § 2190, subd. 4). Judgment affirmed. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2011 - 1095 Directorate Identifier: 2010NM241AD

SBIS 605 - 24 - 004 --- 2/17/10

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
#### § 240.16 Governing Law.

This Guarantee shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the United States of America governing contracts and commercial transactions of the United States Government.
###### Editorial Note on Part 40

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 71 FR 34520 and 34521, June 15, 2006.

#### §§ 40.12-40.19 [Reserved]
#### § 33.3 Eligibility.

Any owner or charterer of a U.S. fishing vessel is eligible to apply for an agreement with the Secretary providing for a guarantee in accordance with section 7 of the Act.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-11024

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL C. BARRETT,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:00-CR-39-1

April 23, 2001

Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael C. Barrett appeals his guilty-plea conviction of

possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a

misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, a violation of 18 U.S.C. §§

922(g)(9) and 924(a)(2). For the first time on appeal, Barrett

argues that § 922(g)(9) was unconstitutionally vague on its face

and as applied to him. In connection with this argument, Barrett

also argues that his guilty plea was involuntarily entered and that

the factual basis supporting his plea was insufficient.
**By so ruling, the court does not intend to imply that a

future de novo review of the constitutionality of § 922(g)(9) is

foreclosed.

2

Barrett’s claim is raised for the first time on appeal and is

thus subject to review only for plain error. See United States v.

Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc); United

States v. Lankford, 196 F.3d 563, 570 (5th Cir. 1999), cert.

denied, 529 U.S. 1119 (2000). Under FED. R. CRIM. P. 52(b), this

court may correct forfeited errors only when the appellant shows

the following factors: (1) there is an error (2) that is clear or

obvious and (3) that affects his substantial rights. Calverley, 37

F.3d at 162-64. Barrett has not demonstrated that any “obvious”

error occurred with respect to the constitutionality of §

922(g)(9), as several circuits have already held that the statute

passes constitutional muster. See United States v. Beavers, 206

F.3d 706, 709-10 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1121 (2000);

United States v. Hutzell, 217 F.3d 966, 968-69 (8th Cir. 2000),

cert. denied, S. Ct. , 2001 WL 285845 (U.S. Mar. 26,

2001) (No. 00-7605); United States v. Hancock, 231 F.3d 557, 563-64

(9th Cir. 2000), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Mar. 26, 2001) (No.

00-9017); United States v. Mitchell, 209 F.3d 319, 322 (4th Cir.),

cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 123 (2000). Because there is no “obvious”

error, there is no “plain error” with respect to the

constitutionality of § 922(g)(9).** Barrett’s other claims, which

are dependent upon a finding by this court that § 922(g)(9) is

unconstitutional, are also meritless. Barrett’s conviction is thus

A F F I R M E D.