alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Phoenix Energy Resource Corporation: Exhibit 10.22 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






Exhibit 10.22

Trademark Transfer Agreement

Transferor of trademark: (Party A) Guizhou Yinyan Wood Co.,
Ltd. 
Address: Gelao Chang, Bailang Village, Yunguan County, Guizhou

	Tel: 0851-5520951 	Zip: 550002 
	Legal representative: Bai Yulu 	Title: Chairman 


Transferee of trademark: (Party B) Qianxinan Silvan Flooring
Company, Limited 
Address: Hexin Community, Dingxiao Town, Xingyi

	Tel: 0859-3528295 	Zip: 562409 
	Legal representative: Peng Fangping 	Title: General Manager 


Both parties hereby reach the following agreement concerning
transfer of trademark through negotiation:

	I. 	Trademark to be transferred: Yinyan
  
	II. 	No. of trademark registration: 1182064
    
	III. 	The registered trademark covers the following
      types of product or services with the following specific names: 




	Category: 	Category 19 
	Product items: 	Building-purpose wood, thick wooden board, veneer, processed
wood, saw cut wood, matched flooring strip, floor, flooring wood, wood
chip board, wood for manufacture of household appliances




	IV. 	The Transferor is guaranteed to be the owner of
      the registered trademark: Guizhou Yinyan Wood Co., Ltd.




	V. 	Transferee’s Rights after transfer of
      trademark: 
	1. 	The types of product (or types and names of
      service) for which the trademark may be used: 
	2. 	The territory in which the trademark may be
      used: 
	VI. 	Both parties shall keep confidential of the
      production and operation of the other party; the transferee shall not disclose the technical secrets and trade
secrets provided by the transferor along with the trademark, either during the
term of the agreement or after expiration.


	VII. 	The price for the transfer is zero, which means the trademark is
      transferred for free. 
	 	 
	VIII. 	Other terms or issues discussed by both parties.








	IX. 	Resolution of disputes: Both parties shall negotiate to resolve the
      dispute; if negotiation fails, they can resort to legal procedures. 


	X. 	The agreement will come into effect upon being affixed with the
      signatures and stamps of both parties. If the application for the transfer of the registered
trademark is not approved by the Trademark Bureau, the agreement will naturally
become void, and each party shall assume their respective liabilities.
	 	 


	Transferor (stamp): 	
    	Transferee (stamp): 	
    
	Representative: Bai Yulu 	Representative: Peng Fangping 
	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	Date: November 18, 2009 	 	Date: November 18, 2009
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Stephen Lagoda, Appellant.

Order entered on August 10, 1960 unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Concur—Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
#### § 1000.226 Can the certification requirements of section 102(c)(5) of NAHASDA be waived by HUD?

Yes. HUD may waive these certification requirements as provided in section 101(b)(2) of NAHASDA.
JOINT 

Provision Effective 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 

1. Allow both spouses to make catch-up contributions to

the same health savings account ("HSA") [1]....................... tyba 12/31/16 -15 -32 -35 -38 -41 -44 -47 -5

2. Special rule for certain medical expenses incurred

before establishment of HSA [1]......................................... cba 12/31/16 -6 -16 -18 -20 -21 -23 -24 -2

3. Maximum contribution limit to HSA increased to

amount of deductible and out-of-pocket limitation [1].......... tyba 12/31/16 -900 -1373 -1550 -1734 -1923 -2112 -2298 -247

 NET TOTAL .................................................................................... -922 -1,421 -1,603 -1,792 -1,985 -2,179 -2,369 -2,552 

Joint Committee on Taxation -------------------------------------

NOTE: Details may not add to totals due to rounding.Legend for "Effective" column: cba = coverage beginning after tyba = taxable years beginning after

[1] Estimate includes the following off-budget budget effects: 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 202

Allow both spouses to make catch-up contributions to the same HSA............... -5 -11 -12 -13 -14 -14 -15 -1

Special rule for certain medical expenses incurred before establishment 

of HSA............................................................................................................... -2 -6 -6 -7 -7 -8 -8 -

Maximum contribution limit to HSA increased to amount of deductible and

out-of-pocket limitation..................................................................................... -206 -315 -355 -397 -441 -484 -527 -56

ESTIMATED REVENUE EFFECTS OF H.R. 5445,

Fiscal Years 2017 - 2026 

[Millions of Dollars] 

A BILL TO AMEND THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986 

TO IMPROVE THE RULES WITH RESPECT TO HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS,

SCHEDULED FOR MARKUP BY THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS ON JUNE 15, 2016
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Omtool, Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Timothy P. Losik, Chief Financial Officerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/ Timothy  P. Losik    |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Timothy P.  Losik        |
| Chief  Financial Officer |
| November 13,  2002       |

 

----
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2787 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to restore the mission of the Federal 

Aviation Administration to promote civil aeronautics. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 7, 2005 

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

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to restore the mission of the Federal Aviation Administration to promote 

civil aeronautics. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Promotion 

5 Responsibity for Our U.S. Aviation Act of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION MISSION TO 

7 PROMOTE CIVIL AERONAUTICS. 

8 Section 40101(d) of title 49, United States Code, is 

9 amended— 
2 

•HR 2787 IH 

1 (1) in paragraph (2) by inserting ‘‘and its de2 velopment’’ after ‘‘safety’’; and 

3 (2) in paragraph (3) by inserting ‘‘, pro4 moting,’’ after ‘‘encouraging’’. 

Æ
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: 

CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION

SECURITIES LITIGATION.

This Document Relates

To All Cases.

 /

No. C 08-01510 WHA

ORDER SETTING HEARING

RE DEFENDANT’S

DISCOVERY DISPUTE

A further meet-and-confer is SET for THURSDAY, JANUARY 7, 2010, FROM

8:00–10:00 A.M., in connection with defendant’s discovery dispute outlined in counsel’s

letter of January 4. This will take place in the Court’s jury room on the 19th floor. At 10:00 a.m.,

the Court will hold a hearing in Courtroom 9. Plaintiff’s response is due by noon on January 6. 

Counsel are reminded that only those who participate in the further meet-and-confer may

argue at the hearing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-02984-WHA Document 15 Filed 01/05/10 Page 1 of 1
#### § 96.87 Responsibilities of the accredited agency, approved person, and accrediting entity following suspension, cancellation, or debarment by the Secretary.

If the Secretary suspends or cancels the accreditation or approval of an agency or person, or debars an agency or person, the agency or person must cease to provide adoption services in all intercountry adoption cases. In the case of suspension, it must consult with the accrediting entity about whether to transfer its intercountry adoption cases and adoption records. In the case of cancellation or debarment, it must execute the plans required by §§ 96.33(e) and 96.42(d) under the oversight of the accrediting entity, and transfer its intercountry adoption cases and adoption records to other accredited agencies, approved persons, or a State archive, as appropriate. When the agency or person is unable to transfer such intercountry adoption cases or adoption records in accordance with the plans or as otherwise agreed by the accrediting entity, the accrediting entity will so advise the Secretary who, with the assistance of the accrediting entity, will coordinate efforts to identify other accredited agencies or approved persons to assume responsibility for the cases, and to transfer the records to other accredited agencies or approved persons, or to public domestic authorities, as appropriate.

[71 FR 8131, Feb. 15, 2006, as amended at 79 FR 40636, July 14, 2014]
#### Gertrude E. Allen et al., On Behalf of Themselves and All Other Cottage-Owners and Lessees at Thousand Island Park, Town of Orleans, Similarly Situated, Respondents, v. Thousand Island Park Corporation, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $25 costs and disbursements. (Appeal from order of Jefferson Special Term denying defendant's motion for a dismissal of the complaint and for other relief.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Halpern and McClusky, JJ.
See what's new with book lending at the Internet Archive

      Internet Archive logo    A line drawing of the Internet Archive headquarters building façade.                                                          
      Upload icon    An illustration of a horizontal line over an up pointing arrow.                Upload        
      User icon    An illustration of a person's head and chest.              
Sign up
Log in
            Web icon    An illustration of a computer application window                  Wayback Machine      
            Texts icon    An illustration of an open book.                  Books      
            Video icon    An illustration of two cells of a film strip.                  Video      
            Audio icon    An illustration of an audio speaker.                                                  Audio      
            Software icon    An illustration of a 3.5" floppy disk.                  Software      
            Images icon    An illustration of two photographs.                  Images      
            Donate icon    An illustration of a heart shape                  Donate      
            Ellipses icon    An illustration of text ellipses.                  More      
-  About 
-  Blog 
-  Projects 
-  Help 
-  Donate      Donate icon    An illustration of a heart shape       
-  Contact 
-  Jobs 
-  Volunteer 
-  People 

Advanced Search
- Sign up for free
- Log in

DONATE

## Hrm.

The Wayback Machine has not archived that URL.

Click here to search for all archived pages under      http://wstiac.alionscience.com/pdf/.    

info@archive.org

          The Wayback Machine is an initiative of the          Internet Archive,          a 501(c)(3) non-profit, building a digital library of          Internet sites and other cultural artifacts in digital form.          Other projects include          Open Library &          archive-it.org.        

          Your use of the Wayback Machine is subject to the Internet Archive's          Terms of Use.
#### Board of Commissioners of Washita County v. Joel B. Burrow.

(Filed Feb. 11, 1899.)

1. *Case-Made*— Insufficient. The record examined in this case, and *held*to be insufficient to constitute a legal case-made.

2. *Same*— Rule Followed. This case comes clearly within the rule laid down in the case of *Bocprd v. Moon,*this volume, p. 205 and *Board v. Wright, Id.*190, and authorities there cited.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

*Error from the District Court of Canadian County; before John C. Tarsney, District Judge.*

*John F. Stone,*for plaintiff in error.

*L. C. Uhl*and *George P. Uhl,*for defendant in error.

Action by Joel B. Burrow against the board of commissioners of Washita county. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error.

Dismissed.

Opinion of the court by

Hainer, J.:

This case comes here on appeal from the district court of Canadian county on a case-made. The record is wholly insufficient to present such a case-made as will enable this court to review the errors assigned by the plaintiff in error. The case cannot be considered by this court, for the following reasons: (1) It does not appear that the petition in error was ever filed in this court. (2) The pages of the petition in error and the record are not numbered, as required by the rules of this *213court. (3) It does not affirmatively appear from the case-made that a judgment was rendered in the court helow. There appears to be what purports to be a copy of the journal entry in this record, but there is no' statement or recital that it is the judgment and journal entry in said case; neither does it show that it was ever filed. There also appears to be in the record, preceding this journal entry, a motion for a new trial; but the case-made fails to show that this motion was considered and passed upon by the court, and no exceptions appear to have been preserved therein. (4) The case-made also fails to show that it contains all the evidence introduced upon the trial of said cause. Hence, this case comes clearly within the rule laid down in the case of *Board v. Moon,*this volume, p. 205, and *Broad v. Wright, Id.*190. For the reasons herein stated, the petition in error must be, and the same is hereby, dismissed. ,

Tarsney, J., having presided in the court below, not ■sitting; all of the other Justices concurring.
#### § 1000.24 If an Indian tribe assumes environmental review responsibility, how will HUD assist the Indian tribe in performing the environmental review?

As set forth in section 105(a)(2)(B) of NAHASDA and 24 CFR 58.77, HUD will provide for monitoring of environmental reviews and will also facilitate training for the performance for such reviews by Indian tribes.
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 6- 35 44

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.
Jo rg e Gon zal ez
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ctof Ark an sa s - F ay et te vi ll e

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Apri l 1 3, 2 01 7 Fi le d: Apri l 2 8, 2 01 7 [Un publ is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re RI LEY, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

In th is di rect cri m in al a p p e a l , Jo rg e Gon zal ez ch al le ng es th e se nt en ce th e di st ric t co ur t im

po se d fo ll owi ng hi s gu il ty pl ea to a drug ch arg e. Gon zal ez’s co un se l 1

Th e Hon or ab le Tim ot hy L. Bro ok s, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r t h e 1 W es te rn Dis tri ctof Ark an sa s.m ov es to wit hd raw, an d in a br ie f su bm it te d un de r And ers v. Cal ifo rn ia , 38 6 U.S. 73 8

(1 96 7) , he rai se s th e i s su e th at th e se nt en ce was subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. W e affi rm
.
The di st ric t co ur t im

po se d a se nt en ce be lo w the ap pl ic ab le ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s
ran ge aft er di sc us si ng bo th m it ig at in g an d ag gr av at in g fact s an d ci rcu m st an ces , an d aft er co ns id eri n g s e n t en ci ng fact or s un de r 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). W e co nc lu de th e
se nt en ce was no t subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. See Uni te d Stat es v. Davi d, 68 2 F.3 d 10 74 , 10 77 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (d is cu ss in g ab us e of di sc ret io n) ; Uni te d St at es v. Mo or e, 58 1 F.3 d 68 1, 68 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (p er cu ria m ) (e x p l a i ni ng , whe re di st ric t co ur t
se nt en ced de fen da nt be lo w t he Gui de li ne s ra ng e, it is ne arl y in co nc ei vabl e th at th e
co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in no t va ry in g do wnwar d fu rth er). Hav in g in de pe nd en tl y
rev ie wed th e reco rd pu rs ua nt to Pen so n v. Ohi o, 48 8 U.S. 75 (1 98 8) , we fin d no
no nf riv ol ou s i ss ue s fo r ap pe al

.
W e aff irm, an d we g ran t co un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
#### § 1508.340 If I disclose unfavorable information required under § 1508.335, will I be prevented from participating in the transaction?

As a primary tier participant, your disclosure of unfavorable information about yourself or a principal under § 1508.335 will not necessarily cause us to deny your participation in the covered transaction. We will consider the information when we determine whether to enter into the covered transaction. We also will consider any additional information or explanation that you elect to submit with the disclosed information.
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

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CABN 44332)

United States Attorney

BRIAN J. STRETCH (CABN 163973)

Chief, Criminal Division

CHRISTINE Y. WONG (NYBN 3988607)

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7301

Facsimile: (415) 436-6753

E-Mail: Christine.Wong@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for the United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

CHRISTOPHER BRYAN ABLETT,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 09-0749 RS

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER DOCUMENTING WAIVER

On June 15, 2010, defendant Christopher Bryan Ablett appeared before the Court for a

status conference. Based on the parties’ request for additional time to conduct investigation,

review/produce discovery, the Court set the next status conference for September 14, 2010. The

parties requested, and the Court ordered that the exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act so

that the Government could continue to produce discovery and so that the defendant could review

discovery and conduct an independent investigation. The parties agree that, given the possibility

of a sentence of death in this case, this case qualifies as an “unusual” or “complex” case under

*E-Filed 6/21/10*

Case 3:09-cr-00749-RS Document 52 Filed 06/21/10 Page 1 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

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i).

With the agreement of the parties and with the consent of the defendant, the Court

enters this order confirming the exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act from June 15,

2010, through September 14, 2010. The parties agree and stipulate, and the Court finds and

holds, as follows:

1. On June 15, 2010, defendant Christopher Bryan Ablett appeared before the Court

for a status conference. Based on the parties’ request for additional time to conduct

investigation, review/produce discovery, the Court set the next status conference for September

14, 2010. 

2. Accordingly, the Court finds that the ends of justice served by excluding the

period from June 15, 2010, to September 14, 2010, from Speedy Trial Act calculations

outweighs the interests of the public and the defendant to a speedy trial, by ensuring the effective

preparation of counsel, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B).

STIPULATED:

DATED: June 18, 2010 /s/ 

RICHARD MAZER, ESQ.

Attorney for CHRISTOPHER BRYAN ABLETT

DATED: June 18, 2010 /s/ 

CHRISTINE Y. WONG

Assistant United States Attorney

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June __, 2010 

HON. RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

-2-

21

Case 3:09-cr-00749-RS Document 52 Filed 06/21/10 Page 2 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

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

JEFFREY BITTON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

    v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,et al.,

Defendants                                                                      /

No. C 08-5585 MMC

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILEJOINT STATUS REPORT

The parties having reached a settlement of the above-titled action at the settlement

conference conducted March 2, 2010, said settlement subject to approval by the San

Francisco Board of Supervisors and the San Francisco Police Department, and the matter

previously having been set for trial on October 12, 2010,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, in the event a dismissal has not been filed by May

20, 2010, the parties shall file no later than May 21, 2010 a Joint Status Report, setting

forth therein the status of the parties’ settlement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  March 3, 2010                                                    MAXINE M. CHESNEYUnited States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-05585-MMC   Document 36   Filed 03/03/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-11T22:07:32-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
### §6371h. Administration; detailed description in annual report

(a) The Secretary may prescribe such rules as may be necessary in order to carry out the provisions of this part.

(b) The Secretary shall include in his annual report a detailed description of the actions taken under this part in the preceding fiscal year and the actions planned to be taken in the subsequent fiscal year. Such description shall show the allocations made (including the allocations made to each State) and include information on the types of conservation measures implemented, with funds allocated, and an estimate of the energy savings achieved.

(Pub. L. 94–163, title III, §399, as added Pub. L. 95–619, title III, §302(a), Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3247; amended Pub. L. 96–470, title II, §203(b), Oct. 19, 1980, 94 Stat. 2242.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1980—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 96–470 substituted "include in his annual report a detailed description" for ", within one year after November 9, 1978, and annually thereafter while funds are available under this part, submit to Congress a detailed report" and "Such description" for "Such report".
121 STAT. 988 PUBLIC LAW 110–91—SEPT. 29, 2007 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.J. Res. 43: 

SENATE REPORTS: No. 110–184 (Comm. on Finance). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007): 

May 17, considered and passed House pursuant to S. Con. Res. 21. 

Sept. 27, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 110–91 

110th Congress 

Joint Resolution 

Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt. 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That subsection 

(b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended 

by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection 

and inserting in lieu thereof $9,815,000,000,000. 

Approved September 29, 2007. 

Sept. 29, 2007 

[H.J. Res. 43] 


dkrause on GSDDPC29 with PUBLIC LAWS