alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv4w7






Exhibit 4.7




Translation of the Chinese original




Agreement



Party A: Wong Hing Tuen, Male, Date of Birth: July 31, 1975, Hong Kong resident, Home Return Permit No.: 376919870957, Hong Kong ID: K802751



Party B:
Xu Qiming, Male, Date of Birth: April 28, 1969, domiciled at A4, Wukeng Village West, Jinjiang City, Fujian Province, ID: 350582196904285010



After sufficient and friendly negotiations between Party A and Party B, the parties hereto have reached
an agreement as follows on a voluntary and equal basis:





	1.	 	Party B will, under the name of Party A, register Xiniya
Holdings Limited (the “Company”) in the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region.
	 
	2.	 	The Company will be actually invested and established by Party B under the name of Party A. The actual investor of the Company is Party B, and all the assets of the Company
shall fully belong to Party B. All the creditors’ rights
and newly increased assets (including the residual assets after the cessation of operation)
generated during the production and operation of the Company shall fully belong to Party B.
Any debt (including tax liabilities) incurred in the Company’s
operation shall all be paid
off by Party B, and shall have nothing to do with Party A.
	 
	3.	 	Given that Party A would not make any actual investment, Party A shall not involve himself in the
Company’s operation and management and shall not have the right to participate in the
distribution of the Company’s net profit, nor does he have the right to dispose of any of the
Company’s properties. Being the sole actual investor of the Company, Party B shall have all
the power with respect to the management and operation of the Company, including the decision-making right
with respect to all the business affairs of the Company. Party B has the exclusive right to
possess, use, benefit from and dispose of the Company’s assets. As a result, all the creditors’
rights and debts formed during the Company’s operation have nothing to do with Party A. Party A
shall provide necessary cooperation for the Company to go through relevant formalities in
connection with the operation of the Company.




This agreement is the expression of the true intention of both parties hereto.



This agreement shall be executed in two counterparts with equal force and effect, one for each
party; and shall take effect upon due execution of both parties.




			
	 	 	 
	Party A: /s/ Wong Hing Tuen
	 	Party B: /s/ Xu Qiming
	 	 	 
	 
	 	Date: January 3, 2009
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Howard Steinberg, Appellant.

[716 NYS2d 604]

—Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated November 30, 1998 *(People v Steinberg,*255 AD2d 609), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered July 28, 1997.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see, Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745). Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Bernardo Reyes,

Plaintiff,

 v.

Premier Home Funding, Inc., et al.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 08-04606 JW 

ORDER VACATING TRIAL SCHEDULE;

SETTING FURTHER PRETRIAL

CONFERENCE

On April 26, 2010, the Court conducted a Final Pretrial Conference in this case. The case is

scheduled to begin trial on May 11, 2010. At the Conference, the parties represented that they

would benefit from additional time to engage their settlement efforts. In light of the parties’

representations, the Court finds good cause to vacate the present trial schedule to accommodate the

parties’ settlement efforts. 

Accordingly, the Court VACATES the trial schedule. On or before June 4, 2010, the parties

shall complete their mediation efforts. On June 14, 2010 at 11 a.m., the parties shall appear for a

Further Pretrial Conference. On or before, June 4, 2010, the parties shall file a Joint Further Pretrial

Conference Statement. The Statement shall update the Court on the parties’ settlement efforts and

the parties’ readiness for trial and offer of respective proposals for trial dates. 

Dated: April 27, 2010 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04606-JSW Document 101 Filed 04/28/10 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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Annette D. Kirkham annettek@lawfoundation.org

Frederick James Hickman fhickman@afrct.com

Frederick James Hickman fhickman@afrct.com

James F. Zahradka jamesz@lawfoundation.org

Kimberly Pederson kimp@lawfoundation.org

Mark Tyler Flewelling mtf@afrct.com

Noah Zinner nzinner@heraca.org

Rex Thames Reeves rreeves@reeveslawoffices.com

Dated: April 27, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 3:08-cv-04606-JSW Document 101 Filed 04/28/10 Page 2 of 2
Editorial Note on Part 706
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 706 appear at 84 FR 37751, Aug. 2, 2019.

§ 706.21 Types of fees. ( a ) Direct costs are those expenses that DFC expends in searching for and duplicating (and, in the case of commercial-use requests, reviewing) records in order to respond to a FOIA request. For example, direct costs include the salary of the employee performing the work (*i.e.,* the basic rate of pay for the employee, plus 16 percent of that rate to cover benefits) and the cost of operating computers and other electronic equipment. Direct costs do not include overhead expenses such as the costs of space, and of heating or lighting a facility.
( b ) Duplication is reproducing a copy of a record or of the information contained in it, necessary to respond to a FOIA request. Copies can take the form of paper, audiovisual materials, or electronic records, among others.
( c ) Review is the examination of a record located in response to a request in order to determine whether any portion of it is exempt from disclosure. Review time includes processing any record for disclosure, such as doing all that is necessary to prepare the record for disclosure, including the process of redacting the record and marking the appropriate exemptions. Review costs are properly charged even if a record ultimately is not disclosed. Review time also includes time spent both obtaining and considering any formal objection to disclosure made by a confidential commercial information submitter under § 706.33(c) of this subpart, but it does not include time spent resolving general legal or policy issues regarding the application of exemptions.
( d ) Search is the process of looking for and retrieving records or information responsive to a request. Search time includes page-by-page or line-by-line identification of information within records; and the reasonable efforts expended to locate and retrieve information from electronic records.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1080

JOAN E. JACKSON, Ph.D., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FRANCIS J. HARVEY, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (CA-04- 1510-8-RWT) Submitted: June 30, 2005 Decided: July 28, 2005 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mindy G. Farber, Mary E. Henry, FARBER LEGAL, L.L.C., Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant. Allen F. Loucks, United States Attorney, Larry D. Adams, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Captain Steven M. Ranieri, UNITED STATES ARMY LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Joan E. Jackson appeals the district court’s order awarding summary judgment to her employer on her claims of gender discrimination, age discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and due process violation. This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo. Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. , 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir. 1988). Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). This court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). We find no reversible error and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. SeeJackson v. Harvey , No. CA-04- 1510-8-RWT (D. Md. Nov. 16, 2004). We deny Jackson’s motion to supplement the record. 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
### §300e–13. Repealed. Pub. L. 97–35, title IX, §949(b), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 578

Section, acts July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XIII, §1314, as added Dec. 29, 1973, Pub. L. 93–222, §2, 87 Stat. 932; amended Oct. 8, 1976, Pub. L. 94–460, title I, §115, 90 Stat. 1954; Nov. 1, 1978, Pub. L. 95–559, §13, 92 Stat. 2140, required the Comptroller General to: (a) evaluate the operations, particularly, specified aspects of the operations, of at least ten or one-half, whichever is greater, of the health maintenance organizations for which assistance was provided under sections 300e–2, 300e–3, and 300e–4 of this title, and which, by Dec. 31, 1976, were designated by the Secretary under section 300e–9(d) of this title as qualified health maintenance organizations, to Congress by June 30, 1978; (b) conduct a study of the economic effects on employers resulting from their compliance with the requirements of section 300e–9 of this title and report to Congress not later than 36 months after Dec. 29, 1973; (c) evaluate the operations of health maintenance organizations in comparison with others in distinct categories, in comparison with alternative forms of health care delivery, and their impact on the health of the public and report to Congress not later than 36 months after Dec. 29, 1973; and (d) evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of the policies and procedures of the Secretary for the management of the grant and loan programs established by this subchapter and the adequacy of the amounts of assistance available under these programs and report to Congress not later than May 1, 1979.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2544 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on benzoic acid, 2-amino-4- 

[[(2,5-dichlorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]-, methyl ester. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 23, 2005 

Mr. LANGEVIN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on benzoic acid, 

2-amino-4-[[(2,5-dichlorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]-, methyl 

ester. 

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

3 SECTION 1. BENZOIC ACID, 2-AMINO-4-[[(2,5- 

4 DICHLOROPHENYL)AMINO]CARBONYL]-, 

5 METHYL ESTER. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.02.51 of the Har7 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

8 benzoic acid, 2-amino-4-[[(2,5- 

9 dichlorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]-, methyl ester) is amend10 ed by striking ‘‘12/31/2006’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2008’’. 
2 

•HR 2544 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,789
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,740
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,303
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,956
<PP&E>                                          16,335
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,135
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 100,588
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,702
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            88
<OTHER-SE>                                      61,304
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   100,588
<SALES>                                         26,236
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,236
<CGS>                                           18,147
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,147
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,849
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 266
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,974
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,047
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,893
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,893
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.21
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6928
BRIAN MATTHEW TRACEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS CORCORAN, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-495-JFM) Submitted: October 23, 1997 Decided: November 17, 1997 Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Brian Matthew Tracey, Appellant Pro Se. David Jonathan Taube, Assistant Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court'sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
###### Editorial Note on Part 201

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 201 appear at 62 FR 38027, July 16, 1997.

#### § 201.70 Purpose.

This subpart sets forth the rights and responsibilities of banks with regard to reimbursement under a letter of commitment opened pursuant to an USAID request. Banks will not be held responsible for the requirements of subparts B, C, D, E (excluding § 201.44(a)(1)), and subpart G except insofar as provisions of these subparts are included in this subpart H or in a letter of commitment issued by USAID to a bank.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 241 (Thursday, December 16, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 75348]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27560]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice: 04-147]


Notice: Correction

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
SUMMARY: In the Federal Register issue of Friday, May 7, 2004 (Volume 
69, No. 89), pgs. 25613-25615, Notice [04-060], make the following 
corrections: ``Security Classification: Some of the material contained 
in the system has been classified in the interests of national security 
pursuant to Executive Order 11652.'' should read ``Security 
Classification: Some of the material contained in the system has been 
classified in the Interests of national security pursuant to Executive 
Order 12958, as amended.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Richardson, Associate 
Counsel to the Inspector General, (202) 358-2548.

Patti F. Stockman,
NASA Privacy Act Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-27560 Filed 12-15-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
#### HE ZHENG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-72005.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*450Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.*

Filed Feb. 27, 2007.

Thomas V. Massucci, Law Office of Thomas V. Massucci, New York, NY, for Petitioner.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Clare E. Connors, San Francisco, CA, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Respondent.

Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

He Zheng, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Li v.*
      *451
      *Ashcroft, 378*F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

Zheng testified that the Chinese authorities persecuted him in part because they believed he was involved in spying for Taiwan, yet this key fact is omitted from Zheng’s asylum application and written statement. Because this omission is material and goes to the heart of Zheng’s asylum claim, substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. *See Li, 378*F.3d at 962.

Further, because the agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by the record, the IJ properly considered Zheng’s lack of supporting evidence, such as letters or witnesses from his U.S. church community, when denying Zheng’s asylum application. *See Chebchoub v. INS,*257 F.3d 1038, 1044-45 (9th Cir .2001).

Because Zheng failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal, and because his CAT claim is based on the same statements, he failed to establish eligibility for CAT. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153,1156-1157 (9th Cir.2003).

Zheng’s request for oral argument is denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 11

ALLIN CORPORATION

CALCULATION OF NET LOSS PER COMMON SHARE

                   (Dollars in thousands, except per share data)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                 Three Months                  Three Months
                                                                                    Ended                         Ended
                                                                                  March 31,                     March 31,
                                                                                     1999                          2000
                                                                            -----------------------       -----------------------
<S>                                                                         <C>                           <C>
Net (loss) income                                                           $                 (851)       $                   19

Accretion and dividends on preferred stock                                                     100                           153
                                                                            -----------------------       -----------------------

Net loss attributable to common shareholders                                $                 (951)       $                 (134)
                                                                            =======================       =======================

Net loss per common share - basic and diluted                               $                (0.16)       $                (0.02)
                                                                            =======================       =======================

Weighted average common shares outstanding
           during the period                                                             5,988,063                     6,002,520

Effect of restricted common stock                                                          (18,901)                          ---
                                                                            -----------------------       -----------------------

Shares used in calculating net loss per common
             share                                                                       5,969,162                     6,002,520
                                                                            =======================       =======================


</TABLE>
### §4561. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 91–616, title II, §201, Dec. 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 1849; Pub. L. 96–180, §6(a), (b)(1), Jan. 2, 1980, 93 Stat. 1302; Pub. L. 97–35, title IX, §§961, 966(d), (e), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 592, 595, which provided for programs of alcohol abuse and alcoholism prevention for government and other employees, was redesignated section 521 of the Public Health Service Act by Pub. L. 98–24, §2(b)(13), Apr. 26, 1983, 97 Stat. 181, and is classified to section 290dd–1 of this title.