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



 Exhibit 10.35 
 COLLABORATION AGREEMENT 
 Party A: Shanghai Pudong Development Bank Suzhou Branch 
 Party B: Multi-Fineline Electronix (Suzhou) Co.,Ltd 
 In view to further
strengthen the close relationship between Party A (hereinafter called A) and Party B (hereinafter called B) and on the base of the principles of equality and mutual benefit, both parties, through friendly negotiation, have agreed to enter into the
following agreement under the terms specified as followed: 
 I With the total amount of RMB seventy five million credit line , A facilitate with B with
varied corporate financing types, including short-time loan, issuing of L/C, banking acceptance bills, etc. 
 If the loan currency is RMB, the loan’s
interest rate is 10% downward the benchmark stipulated by the People’s Bank of China; 
 If the loan currency is foreign exchange, the loan’s
interest rate is LIBOR(fluctuating everyday) plus 75 base points. 
 II With the minimum deposit amount of USD 3 million, the interest will be
calculated with the interest rate of LIBOR minus 15 base points. 
 III L/C issuance will be charged on the basis of 0.72‰ per L/C. 







 IV T/T remittance will be charged as follows: maximum, RMB 500 yuan; minimum, RMB 50 yuan, below RMB 50 or above RMB 500
the fee will be charged on the basis of 0.45%. 
 V Currencies exchange rate is as follows: if exchange amount is above 0.2 million US dollars, foreign
currency exchanging into RMB can be adjusted upward 100 base points on the basis of purchase price; if below 0.2 million, upward 85 base points. 
 VI
L/C negotiation will be charged on the basis of 0.9%. 
 VII B will open RMB and USD settlement account in A, and B should look upon A as the main
collaboration bank. 
 VIII After the contract takes into effect, both parties will negotiate and replenish the contract as soon as the contract has any
conflict with the Laws regulations and rules of China. 
 IX The duration for this contract is from 31 July, 2007 to 31 July, 2008. 
 X With two originals to A and B respectively, this agreement will be taken into effect with the stamps of both parties. 
  

			
	Party A: [SPDB Suzhou Branch Seal]	 	Party B: [Multi-Fineline Electronix (Suzhou) Co., Ltd Seal]
		
	/s/ Yan Qi	 	 /s/ Philip A. Harding

		
		 	Date: 31 July, 2007
[PROPOSED] ORDER PERMITTING USE Case No. C 08-5481 VRW 

 OF EQUIPMENT IN THE COURTROOM 

 

 

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

Robert E. Rohde (Washington Bar No. 12809) 

(Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

brohde@rohdelaw.com 

Gregory G. Schwartz (Cal. State Bar No. 206134) 

gschwartz@rohdelaw.com 

ROHDE & VAN KAMPEN PLLC 

1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4050 

Seattle, Washington 98154 

Telephone: (206) 386-7353 

Facsimile: (206) 405-2825 

D. Peter Harvey (State Bar No. 55712) 

pharvey@harveysiskind.com 

Raffi V. Zerounian (Cal. Bar No. 236388) 

rzerounian@harveysiskind.com 

HARVEY SISKIND LLP 

4 Embarcadero Center, 39th Floor, 

San Francisco, California 94111, 

Telephone: (415) 354-0100 

Facsimile: (415) 391-7124 

Attorneys for DATA RETRIEVAL TECHNOLOGY, LLC 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

DATA RETRIEVAL TECHNOLOGY, LLC, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

SYBASE, INC. and INFORMATICA 

CORPORATION, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. C 08-5481 VRW 

(Related Case No. C 09-1909 VRW) 

(Related Case No. C 09-5360 VRW) 

[PROPOSED] ORDER PERMITTING 

USE OF EQUIPMENT IN THE 

COURTROOM 

SYBASE, INC. and INFORMATICA 

CORPORATION, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

DATA RETRIEVAL TECHNOLOGY, LLC, 

 Defendant.

 

Case 3:08-cv-05481-JCS Document 133 Filed 08/23/10 Page 1 of 2
- 1 - 

 [PROPOSED] ORDER PERMITTING USE Case No. C 08-5481 VRW 

 OF EQUIPMENT IN THE COURTROOM 

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

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. Plaintiff Data Retrieval Technologies LLC, and its attorneys, paralegals, assistants and 

consultants (the “Plaintiff”) may bring laptop computers, remote controls for same, audio-visual 

projectors, laser pointers, and various cables, cords and power strips and related equipment into the 

courtroom for use at the Markman hearing and hearing on Informatica Corporation’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment of Indefiniteness Regarding “Optimization,” both of which are scheduled to begin at 

9:30 a.m. on August 24, 2010; and 

2. Beginning at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, August 23, 2010 and 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, August 

24, 2010, Plaintiff may have access to the courtroom to set up the above equipment so that the parties 

will be prepared to proceed with the Markman hearing and hearing on Informatica Corporation’s Motion 

for Summary Judgment of Indefinitness Regarding “Optimization” as scheduled. 

DATED: 

 

The Honorable Vaughn R. Walker 

 United States District Court Judge 

8/23/2010

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Judge Vaughn R Walker

Case 3:08-cv-05481-JCS Document 133 Filed 08/23/10 Page 2 of 2
#### § 1000.1 What is the applicability and scope of these regulations?

Under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4101 *et seq.*) (NAHASDA) the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides grants, loan guarantees, and technical assistance to Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages for the development and operation of low-income housing in Indian areas. The policies and procedures described in this part apply to grants to eligible recipients under the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) program for Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages. This part also applies to loan guarantee assistance under title VI of NAHASDA. The regulations in this part supplement the statutory requirements set forth in NAHASDA. This part, as much as practicable, does not repeat statutory language.
### §628b. National random sample study of child welfare

#### (a) In general

The Secretary shall conduct (directly, or by grant, contract, or interagency agreement) a national study based on random samples of children who are at risk of child abuse or neglect, or are determined by States to have been abused or neglected.

#### (b) Requirements

The study required by subsection (a) shall—

(1) have a longitudinal component; and

(2) yield data reliable at the State level for as many States as the Secretary determines is feasible.

#### (c) Preferred contents

In conducting the study required by subsection (a), the Secretary should—

(1) carefully consider selecting the sample from cases of confirmed abuse or neglect; and

(2) follow each case for several years while obtaining information on, among other things—

(A) the type of abuse or neglect involved;

(B) the frequency of contact with State or local agencies;

(C) whether the child involved has been separated from the family, and, if so, under what circumstances;

(D) the number, type, and characteristics of out-of-home placements of the child; and

(E) the average duration of each placement.

#### (d) Reports

#### (1) In general

From time to time, the Secretary shall prepare reports summarizing the results of the study required by subsection (a).

#### (2) Availability

The Secretary shall make available to the public any report prepared under paragraph (1), in writing or in the form of an electronic data tape.

#### (3) Authority to charge fee

The Secretary may charge and collect a fee for the furnishing of reports under paragraph (2).

#### (e) Appropriation

Out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are appropriated to the Secretary for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2002 $6,000,000 to carry out this section.

(Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title IV, §429, formerly §429A, as added Pub. L. 104–193, title V, §503, Aug. 22, 1996, 110 Stat. 2277; amended Pub. L. 105–33, title V, §§5591(a), 5592(a)(1)(C), Aug. 5, 1997, 111 Stat. 643, 644; renumbered §429, Pub. L. 109–288, §6(f)(3), Sept. 28, 2006, 120 Stat. 1247.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 429 of act Aug. 14, 1935, was renumbered section 426(c) and is classified to section 626(c) of this title.

#### Amendments

1997—Pub. L. 105–33, §5592(a)(1)(C), transferred section in original to end of this subpart.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 105–33, §5591(a), inserted "(directly, or by grant, contract, or interagency agreement)" after "conduct".

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

#### Effective Date of 1997 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 105–33 effective as if included in the enactment of title V of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104–193, see section 5593 of Pub. L. 105–33, set out as a note under section 622 of this title.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2497

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Acetamiprid Technical. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 19, 2005

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Acetamiprid 

Technical.

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

3 SECTION 1. ACETAMIPRID TECHNICAL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.03.92 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Acetamiprid Technical) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/

7 2006’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2008’’. 

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

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

•HR 2497 IH 

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

2 the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50281

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

PABLO ALONZO CARRILLO-FLORES,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:19-CR-292-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The Government appeals the dismissal of an indictment charging Pablo 

Alonzo Carrillo-Flores with illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 

U.S.C. § 1326. The district court determined that the notice to appear (NTA) 

that initiated the removal proceedings—which did not specify a date and time 

for the removal hearing—was defective and could not sustain a conviction for 

illegal reentry.

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 1, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-50281 Document: 00515436006 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/01/2020
No. 19-50281

2

In United States v. Pedroza-Rocha, 933 F.3d 490, 492-93 (5th Cir. 2019), 

petition for cert. filed (U.S. Nov. 6, 2019) (No. 19-6588), this court considered a 

challenge to the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss an indictment 

charging illegal reentry under § 1326 on the basis that the NTA was defective 

because it did not specify a date and time for the removal hearing and the prior 

order of removal was thus void. Applying Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684 

(5th Cir. 2019), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Dec. 16, 2019) (No. 19-779), this 

court reversed and remanded, concluding that the NTA was not deficient, that 

the subsequent service of a notice of hearing that included the date and time 

of the removal hearing cured any purported defect in the NTA, that the alleged 

deficiency did not deprive the immigration court of jurisdiction, and that the 

defendant could not collaterally attack his removal order without first 

exhausting his administrative remedies. Pedroza-Rocha, 933 F.3d at 496-98.

The instant case is analogous to Pedroza-Rocha. Accordingly, the 

Government’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is GRANTED. See 

Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). The 

Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is 

DENIED as unnecessary. The judgment of the district court is REVERSED, 

and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings.

 Case: 19-50281 Document: 00515436006 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/01/2020
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eric Robinson, Appellant.

[715 NYS2d 674]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed *(see, People v Lococo,*92 NY2d 825, 827). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Fahey, J.— Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Edward Kellams, Appellant, v Robert Henderson, as Superintendent of the Auburn Correc*1023tional Facility, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We agree with petitioner that habeas corpus was an appropriate proceeding to test whether petitioner had been denied his constitutional right to a prompt final parole revocation hearing (see *People ex rel. Menachino v Warden, Green Haven State Prison,*27 NY2d 376, 379; *People ex rel. Warren v Mancusi,*40 AD2d 279, 281). We find, however, no delay warranting petitioner’s immediate release. In 1971 petitioner was sentenced to 0-12 years for manslaughter, second degree. He was paroled on June 10, 1976 and on December 23, 1976 petitioner was incarcerated for parole violation as of September 17, 1976. Probable cause to to revoke parole was found at a preliminary hearing on January 3, 1977. The Parole Board alleges that it was prepared to hold a final hearing on February 15, 1977 but on January 26 petitioner requested a postponement until counsel was assigned him. On March 7, 1977 the court appointed counsel but petitioner declined the assignment and employed present counsel who petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus on March 10, 1977. The delay after March 10 has been occasioned by the pendency of this proceeding. Inasmuch as the delay before January 26 was not unreasonable (see *Morrissey v Brewer,*408 US 471, 488, holding a delay of two months not unreasonable) and the delay thereafter resulted from petitioner’s request for postponement pending assignment of counsel and during the pendency of this proceeding, we find no denial of due process. (Appeal from judgment of Cayuga Supreme Court —article 78.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Hancock, Denman and Witmer, JJ.
### §7174. Referral of other rulemaking proceedings to Commission

#### (a) Notification of Commission of proposed action; public comment

Except as provided in section 7173 of this title, whenever the Secretary proposes to prescribe rules, regulations, and statements of policy of general applicability in the exercise of any function which is transferred to the Secretary under section 7151 of this title or section 60501 of title 49, he shall notify the Commission of the proposed action. If the Commission, in its discretion, determines within such period as the Secretary may prescribe, that the proposed action may significantly affect any function within the jurisdiction of the Commission pursuant to section 7172(a)(1) and (c)(1) of this title and section 60502 of title 49, the Secretary shall immediately refer the matter to the Commission, which shall provide an opportunity for public comment.

#### (b) Recommendations of Commission; publication

Following such opportunity for public comment the Commission, after consultation with the Secretary, shall either—

(1) concur in adoption of the rule or statement as proposed by the Secretary;

(2) concur in adoption of the rule or statement only with such changes as it may recommend; or

(3) recommend that the rule or statement not be adopted.

The Commission shall promptly publish its recommendations, adopted under this subsection, along with an explanation of the reason for its actions and an analysis of the major comments, criticisms, and alternatives offered during the comment period.

#### (c) Options of Secretary; final agency action

Following publication of the Commission's recommendations the Secretary shall have the option of—

(1) issuing a final rule or statement in the form initially proposed by the Secretary if the Commission has concurred in such rule pursuant to subsection (b)(1);

(2) issuing a final rule or statement in amended form so that the rule conforms in all respects with the changes proposed by the Commission if the Commission has concurred in such rule or statement pursuant to subsection (b)(2); or

(3) ordering that the rule shall not be issued.

The action taken by the Secretary pursuant to this subsection shall constitute a final agency action for purposes of section 704 of title 5.

(Pub. L. 95–91, title IV, §404, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 586.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

In subsec. (a), "section 60501 of title 49" substituted for reference to section 306 of this Act, meaning section 306 of Pub. L. 95–91 [42 U.S.C. 7155], and "section 60502 of title 49" substituted for reference to section 402(b), meaning section 402(b) of Pub. L. 95–91 [42 U.S.C. 7172(b)] on authority of Pub. L. 103–272, §6(b), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1378, the first section of which enacted subtitles II, III, and V to X of Title 49, Transportation.
### §300s–6. Enforcement of assurances

The Secretary shall investigate and ascertain, on a periodic basis, with respect to each entity which is receiving financial assistance under this subchapter or which has received financial assistance under subchapter IV or this subchapter, the extent of compliance by such entity with the assurances required to be made at the time such assistance was received. If the Secretary finds that such an entity has failed to comply with any such assurance, the Secretary shall report such noncompliance to the health systems agency for the health service area in which such entity is located and the State health planning and development agency of the State in which the entity is located and shall take any action authorized by law (including an action for specific performance brought by the Attorney General upon request of the Secretary) which will effect compliance by the entity with such assurances. An action to effectuate compliance with any such assurance may be brought by a person other than the Secretary only if a complaint has been filed by such person with the Secretary and the Secretary has dismissed such complaint or the Attorney General has not brought a civil action for compliance with such assurance within six months after the date on which the complaint was filed with the Secretary.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XVI, §1627, as added Pub. L. 96–79, title II, §202(c), Oct. 4, 1979, 93 Stat. 634.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1979, see section 204 of Pub. L. 96–79, set out as an Effective Date of 1979 Amendment note under section 300q of this title.
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

JEREMY SMILEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. L. MARTINEZ; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 08-2592 SI (pr)

JUDGMENT

This action is dismissed without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.

Dated: January 19, 2010 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02592-SI Document 34 Filed 01/19/10 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York v. Jose B. Perez.

Motion for leave to prosecute as a poor person denied. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Stevens and Noonan, JJ.
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

CLAIRE C. HAGGARTY, individually

and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

STRYKER ORTHOPAEDICS (aka

STRYKER ORTHOPEDICS; aka

STRYKER ORTHOPEDICS, INC.);

HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS

CORPORATION; STRYKER

CORPORATION; and STRYKER SALES

CORPORATION.

Defendants.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. CV-08-01609-JSW

[PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING THE

ENTIRE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE

[PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING THE ENTIRE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE;

Case No. CV-08-01609-JSW

Case 3:08-cv-01609-JSW Document 107 Filed 04/13/10 Page 1 of 2 Case3:08-cv-01609-JSW Document106 Filed04/12/10 Page1 of 2
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

[PROPOSED] ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). 

Dated: ________________, 2010 ________________________________________

THE HONORABLE JEFFREY S. WHITE

[PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING THE ENTIRE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE;

Case No. CV-08-01609-JSW 1

Case3:08-cv-01609-JSW Document106 Filed04/12/10 Page2 of 2

April 13

Case 3:08-cv-01609-JSW Document 107 Filed 04/13/10 Page 2 of 2
§ 100.130 Discrimination in the terms and conditions for making available loans or other financial assistance. ( a ) It shall be unlawful for any person or entity engaged in the making of loans or in the provision of other financial assistance relating to the purchase, construction, improvement, repair or maintenance of dwellings or which are secured by residential real estate to impose different terms or conditions for the availability of such loans or other financial assistance because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
( b ) Unlawful conduct under this section includes, but is not limited to: ( 1 ) Using different policies, practices or procedures in evaluating or in determining creditworthiness of any person in connection with the provision of any loan or other financial assistance for a dwelling or for any loan or other financial assistance which is secured by residential real estate because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
( 2 ) Determining the type of loan or other financial assistance to be provided with respect to a dwelling, or fixing the amount, interest rate, cost, duration or other terms or conditions for a loan or other financial assistance for a dwelling or which is secured by residential real estate, because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
( 3 ) Servicing of loans or other financial assistance with respect to dwellings in a manner that discriminates, or servicing of loans or other financial assistance which are secured by residential real estate in a manner that discriminates, or providing such loans or financial assistance with other terms or conditions that discriminate, because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
( 4 ) Conditioning an aspect of a loan or other financial assistance to be provided with respect to a dwelling, or the terms or conditions thereof, on a person's response to harassment because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
( 5 ) Subjecting a person to harassment because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin that has the effect of imposing different terms or conditions for the availability of such loans or other financial assistance.
[54 FR 3283, Jan. 23, 1989, as amended at 78 FR 11481, Feb. 15, 2013; 81 FR 63074, Sept. 14, 2016]
### §5602. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 5602 was editorially reclassified as section 11102 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### §§ 1510.161-1510.169 [Reserved]