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





EXHIBIT 10.34



TRIUMPH GROUP, INC.
2016 DIRECTORS’ EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN
RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AWARD AGREEMENT
Triumph Group, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby awards to the Eligible Director named below (the “Participant”) the number of restricted stock units of the Company (the “Units”) in accordance with and subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement together with the provisions of the Company’s 2016 Directors’ Equity Compensation Plan (as it may be amended from time to time, the “Plan”), which Plan is incorporated herein by reference (all capitalized terms used herein having the meanings assigned in the Plan unless otherwise herein defined):
Name and Address of Participant:    _____________________
_____________________
_____________________
Number of Units Awarded:  _____________________


Relevant Dates:  The following dates are applicable for this Agreement:
	
					
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 




Grant Date:  _____________________
____________________________________________________________________________
    
Lapse of Forfeiture Date_____________________
	
					
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 



Additional Terms and Conditions:
Each Unit represents the right to receive one share of the Company's common stock, $.001 par value per share (collectively, the “Shares”), upon the payment date following lapse of forfeiture.  The Units will be credited to the Participant in an account established for the Participant until the lapse of forfeiture event occurs; provided, however, that if the Participant makes a deferral election with respect to payment of any or all of the vested Units under the Deferred Compensation Plan for directors, the terms of that Deferred Compensation Plan shall apply to the payment of such deferred Award.
The right to receive the Shares underlying the Units will vest on the lapse of forfeiture date set forth above, or earlier upon the death, Disability or Retirement of the Participant, or departure from the Board resulting from a divestiture or a Change in Control, each as set forth in the Plan.  If the Participant ceases to serve as a director of the Company for any other reason before the lapse of forfeiture date, the unvested Units will be forfeited.  Payment of the Shares will occur promptly after vesting, unless the Participant has made a deferral election with respect to any vested Units under the Deferred Compensation Plan, in which case the terms of that deferral election shall apply to the payment of such deferred Award.
This Award is subject to the terms of the Plan, the terms and conditions of which will govern this Award to the extent not otherwise provided in this Agreement.  A copy of the Plan is being delivered to the Participant with this Agreement.
#### SMYTH et al. v. SICHEL.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

February 27, 1906.)

Brokers—Commissions—Sale ot Realty.

Pen. Code, § 640d (Laws 1901, p. 312, c. 128), providing that In cities of the first and second class any person who shall offer for sale any real property without the written authority of the owner shall be guilty of misdemeanor, cannot be invoked as a defense where the contract has been' fully executed, and. defendant has reaped the beneiit of it, and ac-J khowledged in writing the plaintiff’s agency and performance.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan,.Twelfth' District,- _ V- ^ ........, . ; , ; ... .. _______

*1009Action by Peter Smyth and another against Maurice Sichel. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal.

Reversed.

Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and GIEGERICH and GREEN-BAUM, JJ.

J. Charles Weschler, for appellants.

Albert W. Venino, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We consider that section 640d of the Penal Code (chapter 128, p. 312, Laws 1901) cannot be invoked as a defense to this action. The contract was fully executed, the defendant reaped the benefit of it, and acknowledged in writing the plaintiffs’ agency, which involved employment, and performance. The defendant must be held to have waived the defense afforded him by the statute. Cody v. Dempsey, 86 App. Div. 336, 83 N. Y. Supp. 899; Sinnott v. German Am. Bank, 164 N. Y. 391, 58 N. E. 286. The defense that Sichel and Scully should have been jointly sued, if it had been available, was expressly waived upon the trial by the stipulation of defendant’s counsel that no defense was relied upon except the section of the Penal Code above quoted.

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event.

GIEGERICH, J., concurs. GREENBAUM, J., concurs in result.
47.303-16 F.o.b. designated air carrier's terminal, point of importation. ( a ) *Explanation of delivery term. F.o.b. designated air carrier's terminal, point of importation* means free of expense to the Government delivered to the air carrier's terminal at the point of importation specified in the contract.
( b ) *Contractor responsibilities.* The contractor shall— ( 1 ) ( i ) Pack and mark the shipment to comply with contract specifications; or
( ii ) In the absence of specifications, prepare the shipment for air transportation in conformance with carrier requirements to protect the goods;
( 2 ) Prepare and distribute bills of lading or air waybills;
( 3 ) ( i ) Deliver the shipment in good order and condition to the point of delivery specified in the contract; and
( ii ) Pay and bear all charges incurred up to the point of delivery specified in the contract, including transportation costs; export, import, or other fees or taxes; cost of landing, if any; customs duties; and costs of certificates of origin, consular invoices, or other documents that may be required for exportation or importation; and
( 4 ) Be responsible for any loss of and/or damage to the goods until delivery of the goods to the Government at the designated air carrier's terminal.
( c ) *Contract clause.* The contracting officer shall insert in solicitations and contracts the clause at 52.247-44, F.o.b. Designated Air Carrier's Terminal, Point of Importation, when the delivery term is f.o.b. designated air carrier's terminal, point of importation.
#### 623.204 Procurement exemptions.

The head of the contracting activity is the agency head's designee for the purpose of executing the written determination to not purchase ENERGY STAR® or FEMP-designated products.”
1Pursuant 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

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 99-31184 cons/w

No. 99-31332 

SCHUYLER RUHLMAN LOUAPRE, Individually and as the 

executrix of the estate of Imelda B. Ruhlman,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, ET AL.,

Defendants,

TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION; TOYOTA MOTOR SALES USA, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Louisiana

97-CV-3584

February 12, 2001

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, DAVIS and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

AFFIRMED. See 5th Circuit Rule 47.6.
EXHIBIT 31.2




YASHENG GROUP, LTD.


A California corporation


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER







I, Hai Yun Zhuang, certify that:




1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of YaSheng Group, Ltd.;




2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;




3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this  report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;




4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:





a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;





b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under out supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;





c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and





d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and




5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):




a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and




b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.








Date: March 15, 2010





/s/ Hai Yun Zhuang


Hai Yun Zhuang


Chief Financial Officer
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch on Law Enforcement Responses to Opioid Overdoses (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -           National Girls Institute      

# National Girls Institute

Created by the Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the National Girls Institute website functions as a resource to help meet the needs of agencies and organizations that serve at-risk and delinquent girls, as well as the girls themselves. Users can request training and technical assistance and access information about best practices, tools, research, and events.

http://www.ojjdp.gov/newsletter/238120/sf_4.html
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shelton Forbes, Appellant.

[777 NYS2d 470]

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J., on speedy trial motions; Lewis Bart Stone, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered July 20, 2001, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fifth degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s speedy trial motions. *474Defendant’s challenges to the two periods at issue have not been preserved for appellate review since defendant failed to raise these claims before the motion court *(People v Goode,*87 NY2d 1045 [1996]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these challenges, we would find that the time between April 25 and' May 16, 2000 was excludable because on April 25 the court decided defendant’s omnibus motion and the People were entitled to a reasonable time to prepare for hearings and trial *(see People v Green,*90 AD2d 705 [1982], *lv denied 58*NY2d 784 [1982]), constituting “a reasonable period of delay resulting from . . . pre-trial motions” within the meaning of CPL 30.30 (4) (a). The period between July 13 and August 1, 2000 was also excludable since the adjournment request was initiated by defendant *(see People v Jenkins,*286 AD2d 634 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 683 [2001]).

The court’s instructions about the administrative duties of the jury foreperson, and its response to a note from the deliberating jury on this subject, were appropriate. Although the court made a reference to the foreperson “chairing” the discussions, it stated that it was up to the jury as a whole to decide what such “chairing” would constitute, and that the foreperson’s opinion and vote were entitled to the same weight as that of any other juror *(see People v Benito,*287 AD2d 387 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 679 [2001]; *cf. People v Rosa,*122 Misc 2d 905, 906 [1984]). The court also stated that any juror could compose a note for submission to the court.

We decline to invoke our interest of justice jurisdiction to dismiss the noninclusory concurrent count *(see People v Spence,*290 AD2d 223 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 641 [2002]; *People v Kulakov,*278 AD2d 519 [2000], *lv denied*96 NY2d 785 [2001]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Lerner, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6884

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

AMANZE ANTOINE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (1:18-cr-00017-TSK-MJA-1; 1:22-

cv-00145-TSK)

Submitted: August 27, 2024 Decided: September 16, 2024

Before AGEE, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Amanze Antoine, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6884 Doc: 6 Filed: 09/16/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Amanze Antoine seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Antoine’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of appealability will not issue 

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment 

of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 

(2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 

134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Antoine’s informal brief,

we conclude that Antoine has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see 

also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an 

important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved 

in that brief.”). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6884 Doc: 6 Filed: 09/16/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
#### 852.239-72 Information System Design and Development.

As prescribed in 839.106-70, insert the following clause:

# Information System Design and Development (FEB 2023)

(a) *Design or development at non-VA facilities.* Information systems that are designed or developed for or on behalf of VA at non-VA facilities shall comply with all VA directives developed in accordance with the Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA), Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulations, NIST, and related VA security and privacy control requirements for Federal information systems. This includes standards for the protection of electronic protected health information (PHI), outlined in 45 CFR part 164, subpart C, information and system security categorization level designations in accordance with FIPS 199 and FIPS 200 with implementation of all baseline security controls commensurate with the FIPS 199 system security categorization and the Trusted Internet Connections (TIC) Reference Architecture).

(b) *Privacy Impact Assessment.* During the development cycle a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) must be completed, provided to the COR, and approved by the VA Privacy Service in accordance with VA Directive 6508, Implementation of Privacy Threshold Analysis and Privacy Impact Assessment.

(c) *Security of procured or developed systems and technologies.* The Contractor shall ensure the security of all procured or developed systems and technologies, including their subcomponents (hereinafter referred to as “Systems”), throughout the life of the contract and any extension, warranty, or maintenance periods. This includes, but is not limited to, workarounds, patches, hotfixes, upgrades, and any physical components (hereafter referred to as Security Fixes) which may be necessary to fix all security vulnerabilities published or known to the Contractor anywhere in the Systems, including Operating Systems and firmware. The Contractor shall ensure that Security Fixes shall not negatively impact the Systems.

(d) *Subcontract flow down requirements.* The Contractor shall include the clause at 52.224-1, Privacy Act Notification, in every solicitation and/or subcontract awarded by the Contractor when the clause FAR 52.224-1 is included in its contract.

(End of clause)

[88 FR 4754, Jan. 25, 2023]
Editorial Note on Part 538
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 538 appear at 69 FR 28065, May 18, 2004.

538.271 FSS contract awards. ( a ) FSS awards will be for commercial products and commercial services.
( b ) Before awarding any FSS contract, determine that the offered prices are fair and reasonable (see FAR subpart 15.4 and 538.270). Document the negotiation and your determination using FAR 15.406-3 as guidance.
[64 FR 37227, July 9, 1999, as amended at 81 FR 41137, June 23, 2016; 84 FR 17039, Apr. 23, 2019; 86 FR 68443, Dec. 2, 2021]
#### HAACK v. BROOKLYN LABOR LYCEUM ASS’N et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 22, 1906.)

Action by Laura A. Haack against the Brc lyn Labor Lyceum Association, Joseph Hei and the city of New York.

No opinion. Mol for leave to appeal to the Court of App< granted.
#### GRIMES, Respondent, v. LONG ISLAND R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 16, 1906.)

Action by Ellen M. Grimes against the Long Island Railroad Company.

No opinion. Order modified, by striking therefrom the condition that the costs should be paid out of the judgment to be recovered, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs.
9904.406-40 Fundamental requirement. ( a ) A contractor shall use this fiscal year as his cost accounting period, except that: ( 1 ) Costs of an indirect function which exists for only a part of a cost accounting period may be allocated to cost objectives of that same part of the period as provided in 9904.406-50(a).
( 2 ) An annual period other than the fiscal year may, as provided in 9904.406-50(d), be used as the cost accounting period if its use is an established practice of the contractor.
( 3 ) A transitional cost accounting period other than a year shall be used whenever a change of fiscal year occurs.
( 4 ) Where a contractor's cost accounting period is different from the reporting period used for Federal income tax reporting purposes, the latter may be used for such reporting.
( b ) A contractor shall follow consistent practices in his selection of the cost accounting period or periods in which any types of expense and any types of adjustment to expense (including prior-period adjustments) are accumulated and allocated.
( c ) The same cost accounting period shall be used for accumulating costs in an indirect cost pool as for establishing its allocation base, except that the contracting parties may agree to use a different period for establishing an allocation base as provided in 9904.406-50(e).
[57 FR 14153, Apr. 17, 1992; 57 FR 34167, Aug. 3, 1992]