alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
China Shengda Packaging Group Inc.: Exhibit 10.3 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com





Exhibit 10.3

China Packaging Group Inc.

Nov. 1, 2010

Dear Mr. Chan Shun-Kuen:

Re.: Independent directorship

We are writing to confirm your appointment as an independent director of
China Packaging Group, Inc. (the "Company"), which is currently listed on the OTCBB under CPAK.OB.

Following your acceptance, your appointment will be effective as of Nov. 1,
2010. You are entitled to an annual director's fee of US$24,000, or its RMB
equivalent. Your annual fee will be payable monthly.

You hereby agree to maintain the confidentiality of the confidential
information and trade secrets of the Company, including but not limited to, any
confidential information and statistics, business plans, operations,
technologies, know-how, systems and/or the proposed sale, purchase and use of
services and products furnished in oral, visual, written and/or other tangible
form and not to disclose such information to any third party without the prior
consent of the Company.

Please confirm your acceptance of the appointment as an independent director
of the Company by signing, dating and returning to us the attached copy of this
letter.

Yours faithfully,



/s/ Fang Nengbin

Fang Nengbin

Chairman of the Board

I hereby confirm my acceptance to act as an independent director of the
Company upon the terms contained in this letter.



/s/ Chan Shun-Kuen

Chan Shun-Kuen



Date: Nov. 1, 2010
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-2258

_____________________________

ANTHONY RAY PEEK,

Petitioner,

v.

FLORIDA COMMISSION ON 

OFFENDER REVIEW,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Certiorari—Original Jurisdiction.

April 3, 2024

TANENBAUM, J.

The trial court below dismissed the petitioner’s complaint 

seeking a writ of prohibition. The order of dismissal in that 

instance is a final order. It is appealable as a matter of right 

because the trial court did not render that order in a review 

capacity. Cf. City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624, 

626 (Fla. 1982) (agreeing that “a final judgment of a circuit court 

acting in its review capacity is not appealable as a matter of 

right”). We in turn convert the petition to an appeal. See Fla. R. 

App. P. 9.040(c). The appeal, however, is untimely. See Fla. R. App. 

P. 9.110(b) (requiring that a notice of appeal be filed within thirty 

days of rendition of the order to be reviewed); see also Art. V, § 2(a), 

Fla. Const. (providing authority to the supreme court to “adopt 
2

rules for the practice and procedure in all courts including the time 

for seeking appellate review”).

Timeliness of an appeal is jurisdictional. Cf. § 59.081(2), Fla. 

Stat. (“Failure to invoke the jurisdiction of [an appellate court] 

within the time prescribed by [supreme court rule] shall divest 

such court of jurisdiction to review such cause.”). When a notice of 

appeal has been untimely filed, dismissal is the only course of 

action for this court. See Donin v. Goss, 69 So. 2d 316, 318 (Fla. 

1954) (“However, a principle so well settled that no citation of 

authority is required, is that jurisdiction cannot be conferred on 

this Court by consent. Unless an appeal is taken within the 

prescribed time, this Court has no jurisdiction whatever.”); see also

Counne v. Saffan, 87 So. 2d 586, 587 (Fla. 1956) (“The filing of the 

notice of appeal is jurisdictional and this court is without power to 

exercise its jurisdiction in the absence of the filing of such a notice 

within the time and manner prescribed by our rules.”); State ex rel. 

Diamond Berk Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Carroll, 102 So. 2d 129, 131 (Fla. 

1958) (“A court has no power to act in the absence of a 

jurisdictional foundation for the exercise of the power. The timely 

and proper filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional essential 

to enable an appellate court to exercise its power.”); Peltz v. Dist. 

Ct. of Appeal, Third Dist., 605 So. 2d 865, 866 (Fla. 1992) (“The 

untimely filing of a notice of appeal precludes the appellate court 

from exercising jurisdiction.”).

B.L. THOMAS, J., concurs; LEWIS, J., concurs in result only without 

opinion.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Anthony Ray Peek, pro se, Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.
S TEVE M ORRISSEY M ANAGING D IRECTOR —R EGULATORY AND P OLICY (202) 296-2733 (202) 296-2873 FAX

STEVE

. MORRISSEY @ UNITED

. COM January 18, 2011

Esta Rosenberg, Chief U.S. Carrier Licensing Division U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Blanket Statements of Authorization of United Air Lines, Inc. and Air New Zealand Limited (Docket DOT-OST-1999-6013) and Con tinental Airlines, Inc. and Air New Zealand Limited (Docket DOT-OST-2009-0340)

Dear Ms. Rosenberg:

Pursuant to the blanket Statements of Aut horization granted by the Department to United Air Lines, Inc. (“United”) and Air New Z ealand Limited (“ANZ”) on August 6, 1999 (Docket DOT-OST-1999-6013) and to Continen tal Airlines, Inc. (“Contin ental”) and ANZ on January 26, 2010 (Docket DOT-OST-2009-0340), United/Continen tal hereby notifies the Department that ANZ’s “NZ” designator code will be placed on the following flights:

 United-operated flights between San Franci sco and Los Angeles, CA-Mexico City, Mexico; and

 Continental-operated flights between Los Angeles, CA-Leon/Guanajuato, Mexico.

The proposed code-share services are fully consistent with ap plicable bilateral agreements. The carriers intend to implement these services on or after February 17, 2011.

Respectfully submitted,

Steve Morrissey Managing Director, Regulatory & Policy
UNITED AIR LINES, INC. AND

CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC.

cc: George Wellington Linda Lundell Dan Weiss Brian Hedberg Charles Hunnicutt Brett Kruger Susan GotbetterCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this date se rved a copy of the foregoing document on all

persons named below by causing a copy to be sent via email:

barbara.russell@virginamerica.com

carl.nelson@aa.com dkirstein@yklaw.com jeff.morgan@delta.com jyoung@yklaw.com (Spirit) donna.kooperstein@usdoj.gov dwight.moore@ustranscom.mil efaberman@wileyrein.com (Air Tran/Frontier) howard.kass@usairways.com jhill@dowlohnes.com (Hawaiian/Jet Blue) john.allen@faa.gov john.fredericksen@suncountry.com

msinick@ssd.com (Alaska) pmurphy@lopmurphy.com (USA 3000) sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com urskr@state.gov william.stallings@usdoj.gov

Annalei Avanceña

Dated: January 18, 2011
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

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALPHONSO OLIPHANT, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

    v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,et al.,

Defendants                                                                      /

No. C-08-5048 MMC

ORDER CONTINUING STATUSCONFERENCE; REFERRING CASE TOMAGISTRATE JUDGE FORSETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

In light of defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment, set for hearing on

April 2, 2010, the Status Conference currently scheduled for March 19, 2010 is hereby

CONTINUED to May 7, 2010 at 10:30 a.m.  A Joint Status Conference Statement shall be

filed no later than April 30, 2010.

Additionally, the case is hereby REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen

for a settlement conference to be conducted in the month of May 2010, his calendar

permitting.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  March 16, 2010                                                   MAXINE M. CHESNEYUnited States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-05048-MMC   Document 58   Filed 03/16/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-12T18:52:21-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
### §5677. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 5677 was editorially reclassified as section 11187 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
SAT Report

PMN Number: P-10-0224

SAT Date: 3/2/2010

Print Date: 8/2/2010

Related cases: CBI: Yes

Health related cases: 

Ecotox related cases: 

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 2 1

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

 3 1 2 Anion

 1 1 1 Cation

Exposure Based Review:

Health: No

Ecotox: No

Routes of exposure: Health: Drinking Water Inhalation 

Ecotox: No releases to water

Fate: ; Anion rapid; Cation moderate

Keywords:

 Keywords: LIVER, NEURO

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-10-0224

FATE: 

Solid with MP = 118 EC (M)

S > 1 g/L at 25 EC (M)

VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 EC (E)

BP > 400 EC (E)

H < 1.00E-8 (E)

POTW removal (%) = Anion 0; Cation 50 via sorption and biodeg

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = Anion > mo; Cation wk-mo

Sorption to soils/sediments = Anion low; Cation moderate

PBT Potential: Anion P3B1; Cation P1B1

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = Anion rapid; Cation moderate
 Health:

 Health Summary: Absorption is nil through the skin, good through the 

lungs, good through the GI tract for the anion, and poor through the GI tract for the cation based 

on physical/chemical properties. There is concern for liver effects for the anion based on a 

28-day oral study in rats for the salt of the anion that showed liver effects at 60 mg/kg 

and minor effects at 10 mg/kg with a NOEL of 1.67 mg/kg There is concern for 

neurotoxicity for the anion based on an oral LD50 of 185 mg/kg for the of the anion 

with signs of neurotoxicity before death and uncertain concern for neurotoxicity for 

the cation based on the . Moderate concern. 

 Ecotox:

Test 

Organism

Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 >100

daphnid 48-h LC50 >100

green algal 96-h EC50 >100

fish _ chronic value >10

daphnid _ chronic value >10

algal _ chronic value >10

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SAR-nearest analog method for cationic 

; SAR 

chemical class = ; solid with mp = 118 C 

(M); S < 1 g/L at 20 C, pH 7 (P); pH7; effective concentrations based on 100% active 

ingredients and nominal concentrations; DW hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and DW TOC 

<2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb)

1000

SARs cationic surfactants

SAR Class

Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair: Becky Jones
Order entered November 16, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00954-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF T.J., W.J. AND T.J., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 199-30035-2021

ORDER

Mother’s brief in this termination of parental rights case is overdue. 

Because these types of cases must be handled expeditiously, Mother is 

ORDERED to file her brief by December 1, 2022. See TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN.

6.2(a) (appeal of termination of the parent-child relationship should, so far as 

reasonably possible, be disposed of within 180 of the date the notice of appeal is 

filed). Failure to file the brief by the time specified may result in an order for the 

trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why Mother’s brief has not been filed. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a)(2).
/s/ DENNISE GARCIA

JUSTICE
### §6323a. Matching State contributions

For the base State Energy Conservation Program (part D of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, sections 361 through 366 [42 U.S.C. 6321–6326]), each State will hereafter match in cash or in kind not less than 20 percent of the Federal contribution.

(Pub. L. 98–473, title I, §101(c) [title II], Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 1837, 1861.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 94–163, Dec. 22, 1975, 89 Stat. 871. Part D of title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, is classified generally to this part (§6321 et seq.). For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 6201 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1985, as enacted by Pub. L. 98–473, and not as part of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act which comprises this chapter.

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in the following prior appropriation act:

Pub. L. 98–146, title II, Nov. 4, 1983, 97 Stat. 942.
### §6215. Major fuel burning stationary source

#### (a) Restrictions on issuance of orders or rules by Governor pursuant to section 7425 of this title

No Governor of a State may issue any order or rule pursuant to section 7425 of this title to any major fuel burning stationary source (or class or category thereof)—

(1) prohibiting such source from using fuels other than locally or regionally available coal or coal derivatives, or

(2) requiring such source to enter into a contract (or contracts) for supplies of locally or regionally available coal or coal derivatives.

#### (b) Petition to President

(1) The Governor of any State may petition the President to exercise the President's authorities pursuant to section 7425 of this title with respect to any major fuel burning stationary source located in such State.

(2) Any petition under paragraph (1) shall include documentation which could support a finding that significant local or regional economic disruption or unemployment would result from use by such source of—

(A) coal or coal derivatives other than locally or regionally available coal,

(B) petroleum products,

(C) natural gas, or

(D) any combination of fuels referred to in subparagraphs (A) through (C), to comply with the requirements of a State implementation plan pursuant to section 7410 of this title.

#### (c) Action to be taken by President

Within 90 days after the submission of a Governor's petition under subsection (b), the President shall either issue an order or rule pursuant to section 7425 of this title or deny such petition, stating in writing his reasons for such denial. In making his determination to issue such an order or rule pursuant to this subsection, the President must find that such order or rule would—

(1) be consistent with section 7425 of this title;

(2) result in no significant increase in the consumption of energy;

(3) not subject the ultimate consumer to significantly higher energy costs; and

(4) not violate any contractual relationship between such source and any supplier or transporter of fuel to such source.

#### (d) Effect on authority of President to allocate coal or coal derivatives

Nothing in subsection (a) or (b) of this section shall affect the authority of the President or the Secretary of the Department of Energy to allocate coal or coal derivatives under any provision of law.

#### (e) Definitions

The terms "major fuel burning stationary source (or class or category thereof)" and "locally or regionally available coal or coal derivatives" shall have the meanings assigned to them for the purposes of section 7425 of this title.

(Pub. L. 94–163, title I, §107, as added Pub. L. 95–619, title VI, §661, Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3285; amended Pub. L. 106–469, title VI, §605(b)(2), Nov. 9, 2000, 114 Stat. 2043.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2000—Pub. L. 106–469 inserted section catchline.
Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 15, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19A1862. NATHANIEL ROBERTS, JR. v. THE STATE.

The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this 

Court and with Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors 

and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13.

On May 22, 2019, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors and a 

brief no later than May 31, 2019. As of the date of this order, the appellant's enumeration of 

errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed abandoned and is 

hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).

Because procedural deficiencies have deprived the appellant of the right of appellate 

review, the appellant is hereby informed of the following in accordance with Rowland v. State, 

264 Ga. 872 (452 SE2d 756) (1995):

This Court has dismissed your appeal because an enumeration of errors and a 

brief have not been filed on your behalf as required. If this failure occurred while 

you were represented by legal counsel and was due to your appellate counsel's 

failure to perform the duties of appellate counsel, and if you still wish to appeal, 

you may file a motion in the trial court for permission to pursue an out-of-time 

appeal. If the trial court grants your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will 

have 30 days from the filing date of the order granting your motion to file in the 

trial court a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence. If the 

trial court denies your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will have 30 days 

from the filing date of the order denying your motion to file in the trial court a 

notice of appeal from that order.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 15, 2019.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the appellant as well as to 

the appellant's attorney of record, if any. The appellant's attorney is also directed to send a copy 

of this order to the appellant.
#### Ronald B. Steed, Doing Business as Steed Real Estate, Appellant, v Gilbert Jobe et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. Michael W. Malarney, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[832 NYS2d 808]

In an action to recover a real estate brokerage commission, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), dated December 14, 2005, as denied that branch of his motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint. “To earn a commission, a broker must prove that he or she had a contract, either express or implied, with the party to be charged with paying the commission and that he or she was the procuring cause of the sale” *(Dagar Group v Hannaford Bros. Co.,*295 AD2d 554, 555 [2002]; *see Hammer v Griffin,*19 AD3d 450 [2005]). Here, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the plaintiff was the procuring cause of the sale *(see A-l Realty Network of Homes, Inc. v Kwang Ho Kim,*34 AD3d *846705, 706 [2006]). Miller, J.P., Ritter, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2680 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2680

To amend the Social Security Act to permit a waiver by the Secretary of 
 Health and Human Services of the 24-month waiting period for Medicare 
        coverage of disabled individuals who are terminally ill.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 26, 2005

    Mr. Hulshof (for himself, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Foley, and Mr. Shaw) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Social Security Act to permit a waiver by the Secretary of 
 Health and Human Services of the 24-month waiting period for Medicare 
        coverage of disabled individuals who are terminally ill.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare for the Terminally Ill Act 
of 2005''.

SEC. 2. WAIVER OF 24-MONTH WAITING PERIOD FOR MEDICARE COVERAGE OF 
              DISABLED INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE TERMINALLY ILL.

    (a) In General.--Section 226(h) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 426(h)) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(A)'' before ``in the case''; and
            (2) by inserting after ``(ALS)'' the following: ``and (B) 
        in the case of an individual whom a physician has certified in 
        writing as being terminally ill (within the meaning of section 
        1861(dd)(3)(A)) and for whom the Secretary has made a 
        determination that the requirements of subsection (b) (relating 
        to 24 months of entitlement to benefits or other status) would 
        otherwise work an undue hardship on such individual, as 
        determined on the basis of criteria established by the 
        Secretary''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act shall apply to 
benefits for months beginning after 90 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

The State of Texas

, * From the 220th District Court

of Comanche County

Trial Court No. 1319

.

Vs. No. 11

- 1 7

- 00 236

- CR * August 30 , 2019

Joe D. Bryan

, * Memorandum Opinion by Wright

, S. C.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.

, Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.,

sitting by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes tha t there

is error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion,

we vacate the trial court’s August 14, 2017 order gran ting Joe D. Bryan’s first

motion for additional post

- conviction forensic DNA testing, and we remand this

cause to the trial court for further proceedings.
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 14

- 00118

- CR

CEDRIC WILLIS

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

From the 13th District Court

Navarro County, Texas

Trial Court No. 33700

- CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Cedric Jerome Willis appealed his conviction for assault/family violence. See

T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 22.01(a) & (b

- 1) (West 2011). He has now filed a motion to

dismiss his appeal which he and his attorney have signed.

Willis’s motion is granted, and this appeal is dismissed. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.2(a).

TOM GRAY

Chief JusticeWillis v. State Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justi ce Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed May 22, 2014

Do not publish

[CR25]
exhibit1031.htm


Exhibit 10.31


Commitment


 


of


 


Contingent After-Payment or Call-Payment of Housing Fund


 







Whereas: Company (Shandong Longkong Travel Development Co., Ltd) un-pays the Housing Found for staff since the company formed, as the actual controller of the Company, I hereby presents the irrevocable commitment as following:








1.  I would supervise and urge Company to start to pay the Housing Fund for staff from the date of October, 2010.


 





2.  If any Government authority requires Company to provide the after-payment or call-payment of the Housing Fund for Company staff, and Company may incur a penalty or any loss for that, I would bear all the compensation obligations without a claim to Company for recovering above compensation.














/s/ ZHANG SHANJIU


 


Date: 28-9-2010