alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
akrk_ex106a.htm


    EXHIBIT
10.6a

     

    PATENT
TRANSFER AGREEMENT

    


    THIS
AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is dated on August 11, 2008 by and between Xi’an
Hanxin Science & Technology Co., Ltd. (the “Company”) and Fangshe Zhang -
Chairman of the company after negotiations between the two parties based on
voluntary, fair and mutually beneficial
principles:

    


    
      	
               
      

            	
              Section I. The agreement dated of June 12,
      2008 between the Company and Mr. Zhang is hereby canceled. Mr. Zhang
      hereby agrees to transfer the ownership of the three patents (Patents No.
      : ZL01131762.0、ZL01131761.2、ZL01131763.9)
      (“Patents”) to the Company for no cash
payment.

            


    

    


    
      	
               
      

            	
              Section
      II. Upon the execution of this Agreement, the Company shall be entitled to
      all the ownership rights to the three
Patents.

            


    

    
      	
               
      

            	 


    

    
      	
               
      

            	
              Section III. Fangshe Zhang shall follow the
      appointment, and shall not supply the same or similar technology to any
      other parties in any forms.

            


    

    


    
      	
               
      

            	
              Section IV. This agreement will be in two
      copies and each one will be kept by the two parties with the same legal
      efficacy after signatures.

            


    

    


    


    Xi’an
Hanxin Science & Technology Co., Ltd.

    


    Signture:
/s/ Pengcheng
Chen

    Title:
Pengcheng Chen, CEO

    


    


    


    


    Signture:
/s/ Fangshe Zhang

    Fangshe
Zhang
#### § 985.20 Establishment and membership.

A Spearmint Oil Administrative Committee is hereby established (hereinafter referred to as *Committee*) and shall consist of eight members, each of whom shall have an alternate, to administer the terms and provisions of this part. Four of the members and alternates shall be producers in District 1; two members and alternates shall be producers in District 2; and one member and alternate shall be a producer in District 3. One member and alternate shall represent the public.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of Periodic Report

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

As adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Pursuant to, and for
purposes only of, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, each of the undersigned hereby certifies that (i) the Quarterly Report of First United
Corporation on Form 10-Q, as amended, for the quarter ended March 31, 2020 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
 “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
(ii) information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of First United Corporation.





|Date: September 4, 2020 | /s/ Carissa L. Rodeheaver                        
|----------------------- | -------------------------------------------------
|                        | Carissa L. Rodeheaver, CPA, CFP                  
|                        | Chairman of the Board, President and             
|                        | Chief Executive Officer                          
|                        | (Principal Executive Officer)                    
|                        |                                                  
|                        |                                                  
|Date: September 4, 2020 | /s/ Tonya K. Sturm                               
|                        | Tonya K. Sturm                                   
|                        | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|                        | (Principal Financial Officer)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES TYRONE EDWARDS, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 06-0088-CB-M

LT. LORETTA HOLLAND, et al., :

Defendants. :

ORDER

The Order entered March 9, 2006, ruling on Plaintiff’s

Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (Doc. 3) is hereby

RESCINDED, in light of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996,

so the transferee Court may address the motion and related

issues. 

DONE this 28th day of June, 2006.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00740-MHT-SRW Document 5 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 1 of 1 Case 1:06-cv-00088-CB-M Document 6 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 1 of 1
§ 993.13 Handle. *Handle* means to receive, package, sell, consign, transport, or ship (except as a carrier of prunes owned by another person), or in any other way to place prunes in the current of the commerce within the area or from such area to any point outside thereof: *Provided,* That this term shall not include: ( a ) Sales or deliveries of prunes by a producer or dehydrator to a producer, dehydrator, or handler within the area;
( b ) the receiving of prunes by a producer or dehydrator from a producer or dehydrator; and
( c ) receipts, sales, or shipments of prunes already handled by another person other than pursuant to § 993.50(f).
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3479 

To suspend temporarily the duty on numerous other seals made of rubber 

or silicone, and covered with, or reinforced with, a fabric material. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 8, 2006 

Mr. BROWNBACK introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on numerous other seals 

made of rubber or silicone, and covered with, or reinforced with, a fabric material. 

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

3 SECTION 1. NUMEROUS OTHER SEALS MADE OF RUBBER 

4 OR SILICONE, AND COVERED WITH, OR REIN5 FORCED WITH, A FABRIC MATERIAL. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

9 new heading: 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 3479 IS 

‘‘ 9902.59.11 Numerous other seals made of rubber or 

silicone, and covered with, or reinforced 

with, a fabric material (provided for in 

subheading 5911.90.00) .......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

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

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

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

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
224.203 Policy.    (S-90) Upon receipt of a request under this subpart, the DISA employee shall inform the requester that they must file a Freedom of Information Act request to the address below. Requests can be sent via USPS, fax or e-mail. Advise requester(s) that the FOIA Office is the focal point of all such information and that official information may only be released through the FOIA Office or their authorized designee.       Defense Information Systems Agency       ATTN: Headquarters FOIA Requester Service Center       P.O. Box 549       Ft Meade, MD 20755-0549 FAX: (301) 225-0510       disa.meade.gc.mbx.foia@mail.mil       (S-91) This policy does not apply to those infrequent situations in which a DISA employee may be under court order, subpoena, or otherwise directed to provide such information in a matter under litigation. All such situations should be directed to the DISA Office of General Counsel, before the release of any information occurs or before any appearance, testimony, or other statement before any tribunal. **Parent topic:** SUBPART 24.2 — FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
§ 993.409 Undersized prune regulation for the 2002-03 crop year. Pursuant to §§ 993.49(c) and 993.52, an undersized prune regulation for the 2002-03 crop year is hereby established. Undersized prunes are prunes which pass through openings as follows: for French prunes, 24 ⁄ 32 of an inch in diameter; for non-French prunes, 30 ⁄ 32 of an inch in diameter. [67 FR 31722, May 10, 2002]
#### Lenora Pasternack, Appellant, v Norma Sokoloff, Respondent.

In a conversion action, plaintiff appeals from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 25, 1979, which dismissed the complaint. Amended judgment modified by (1) deleting from the decretal paragraph thereof everything following the word "dismissed” and (2) substituting therefor the following: "except as to that part of the complaint alleging conversion of (a) a bond for $1,642.24 in the names of plaintiff and *579Joseph Sveilich and (b) a bond for $1,850.88 in the names of plaintiff and Anna Sveilich”. As so modified, amended judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. It was error for the trial court to conclude that plaintiff abandoned her conversion action in favor of one to impose a trust on the funds in question. If plaintiff’s property was converted, the use she intended for the property was irrelevant. The mysterious circumstances surrounding the disappearance of the bonds in plaintiff’s name and the testimony that defendant was the only person with access to the safe deposit box warrants the reinstatement of the complaint insofar as it alleges a conversion of these bonds. Plaintiff, however, failed to establish a prima facie case of conversion against defendant with regard to the bond in the names of Anna or Joseph Sveilich or the check for $15,315.44 sent by plaintiff to defendant. Plaintiff has no basis for alleging the conversion of a bond that is not in her name and to which she shows no entitlement. She also failed to establish that defendant’s actions or inactions constituted a conversion of the check. There is no proof that it was defendant who wrongfully interfered with the irrevocable assignment of the funds at issue and converted them to her own use. Hopkins, J. P., Rabin, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHRISTINE BENNETT, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06cv723-MHT

)

ARMY FLEET SUPPORT, LLC, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

 For good cause, it is

ORDERED that this matter be and is hereby set for a status and scheduling conference

on September 25, 2006, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 4B, United States Courthouse Complex,

One Church Street, Montgomery, Alabama. The plaintiff is advised that if she fails to appear

as required by this order, the court will treat the plaintiff’s failure to appear as an

abandonment of the claims set forth in the complaint and as a failure to prosecute this action

and the undersigned will dismiss this action.

Done this 15 day of September, 2006. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 10 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 1 of 1
Third Department,

January, 1967

(January 5, 1967)

#### In the Matter of the Claim of Bruno R. Ilibassi, Appellant. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (1) holding claimant ineligible for benefits on the ground that he was not totally unemployed, (2) charging him with an overpayment which was ruled recoverable, and (3) imposing a forfeiture of 116 effective days in reduction of future benefit lights upon finding that he willfully made false statements to obtain benefits. The board’s findings were predicated largely upon proof of certain sales contracts prepared by claimant himself, showing sales on commission during the period for which he certified total unemployment. Certainly the board was entitled to credit this evidence and to deny credence, as it expressly did, to claimant’s statement that he predated all the contracts. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur.
Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 85 Filed 01/12/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 85 Filed 01/12/2007 Page 2 of 2
§ 1021.314 Supplemental environmental impact statements. ( a ) DOE shall prepare a supplemental EIS if there are substantial changes to the proposal or significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns, as discussed in 40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1).
( b ) DOE may supplement a draft EIS or final EIS at any time, to further the purposes of NEPA, in accordance with 40 CFR 1502.9(c)(2).
( c ) When it is unclear whether or not an EIS supplement is required, DOE shall prepare a Supplement Analysis. ( 1 ) The Supplement Analysis shall discuss the circumstances that are pertinent to deciding whether to prepare a supplemental EIS, pursuant to 40 CFR 1502.9(c).
( 2 ) The Supplement Analysis shall contain sufficient information for DOE to determine whether: ( i ) An existing EIS should be supplemented;
( ii ) A new EIS should be prepared; or
( iii ) No further NEPA documentation is required.
( 3 ) DOE shall make the determination and the related Supplement Analysis available to the public for information. Copies of the determination and Supplement Analysis shall be provided upon written request. DOE shall make copies available for inspection in the appropriate DOE public reading room(s) or other appropriate location(s) for a reasonable time.
( d ) DOE shall prepare, circulate, and file a supplement to a draft or final EIS in the same manner as any other draft and final EISs, except that scoping is optional for a supplement. If DOE decides to take action on a proposal covered by a supplemental EIS, DOE shall prepare a ROD in accordance with the provisions of § 1021.315 of this part.
( e ) When applicable, DOE will incorporate an EIS supplement, or the determination and supporting Supplement Analysis made under paragraph (c) of this section, into any related formal administrative record on the action that is the subject of the EIS supplement or determination (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(3)).
#### BACON, Appellant, v. SAYRE et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

July 7, 1914.)

Action by Francis Bacon, individually and as executor, etc., against Wellington K. Sayre and another, as executors, etc., and George B. Zartman, as trustee, etc.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. For opinion below, see 84 Misc. Rep. 462, 147 N. Y. Supp. 522.
#### ZILIAK SCHAFER MILLING CO. v. SCHWALL.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 31, 1914.)

Action by the Ziliak Schafer Blilling Company against Henry C. Schwall.

No opinion. Application denied, with $10 costs. Order signed.
Order entered November 26, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 13
- 01035
- CV MICHELLE MANAUTOU, Appellant
V. TEACHERS INSURANCE A ND ANNUITIES ASSOCIA TION OF AMERICA, ET AL . , Appellee s On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 10
- 07908
- E 

### O RDER
We GRANT appellant’s November 22, 2013 unopposed motion for an extension of time to file a brief. Appellant shall file her brief on or before December 27, 2013.
We VACATE this Court’s postcard notice dated November 19, 2013 granting appellant’s November 18, 2013 motion for an extension of time to file a brief.
/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
### STATE OF MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT September 30 , 2016 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v ROBERT CHARLES COOK , Defendant

- Appellant. SC: 15 4394 COA: 317010 Oakland CC: 1970

- 006123

- FX

_________________________________________/ Statement of Justice Zahra Denying Defendant
- Appellant’s Motion to Disqualify

Z AHRA , J. To establish a basis for disqualifying a judge, a party must show that the judge has an actual bias, which is both personal and extrajudicial, against the party or th at the probability of actual bias is too high to be constitutionally tolerable. Cain v Dep’t of Corrections , 451 Mich 470, 497

- 498 (1996); Crampton v Dep’t of State , 395 Mich 347, 351 (1975). Adverse rulings do not establish actual bias unless they “disp lay a deep

- seated antagonism [by the judge] that would make fair judgment impossible.” Cain at 496, quoting Liteky v United States , 510 US 540, 555 (1994).
Here, the defendant

- appellant seeks to disqualify me and other members of the Court based on (1) our denial of his earlier application for leave to appeal and various motions by an order dated September 5, 2014, and (2) a vague and unsupported allegation of an insurance fraud

cover - up. I am unaware of the alleged insurance fraud and do not harbor an y personal bias against the defendant

- appellant. I therefore decline to recuse myself from participating in the decision of this case.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>             5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         200,039
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,426,204
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,886,723
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,919,799
<PP&E>                                       1,614,976
<DEPRECIATION>                                 789,443
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,768,845
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,648,641
<BONDS>                                        423,450
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,273,015
<OTHER-SE>                                     369,595
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,768,845
<SALES>                                      9,994,590
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,994,590
<CGS>                                        5,827,823
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,408,078
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                44,787
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             141,669
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                146,714
<INCOME-TAX>                                   235,709
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            336,524
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   336,524
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10
        

</TABLE>
#### NOSK, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

December 11, 1914.)

Action by Maud Nosk, as administratrix, etc., against the City of New York.

No opinion. Motion for reargument (150 N. Y. Supp. 197) denied, without costs.
§ 1040.89-3 Information requirements. Each recipient shall: (a) Upon request make available to DOE information necessary to determine whether the recipient is complying with the Act and these regulations. ( b ) Permit reasonable access by DOE, upon request, to the books, records, accounts, and other recipient facilities and sources of information to the extent necessary to determine whether the recipient is in compliance with the Act and these regulations.
#### § 110.29 Restricted destinations.

- Afghanistan
- Andorra
- Angola
- Burma (Myanmar)
- Djibouti
- India
- Israel
- Libya
- Pakistan
- South Sudan

[58 FR 13003, Mar. 9, 1993, as amended at 59 FR 48998, Sept. 26, 1994; 61 FR 35602, July 8, 1996; 70 FR 29936, May 25, 2005; 72 FR 1427, Jan. 12, 2007; 77 FR 11385, Feb. 27, 2012; 78 FR 8361, Feb. 6, 2013]
#### Kenneth Heller, Respondent, v Mutual Marine Office, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered February 11, 1980, which denied defendants-appellants’ motion to compel plaintiff-respondent to give responsive answers to defendants’ interrogatories, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, and the exercise of discretion, and motion granted, with costs. Defendants served written interrogatories upon plaintiff, who ignored them. He failed to either answer or object. No motion to strike (CPLR 3133) or for a protective order (CPLR 3103) was made. Defendants then moved to compel plaintiff to file answers to the interrogatories, and Special Term ordered plaintiff to answer without prejudice to making objection as to the propriety of the questions. Plaintiff ignored Special Term’s order. He defaulted in answering and made no motion for a protective order. Defendants then moved for an order dismissing the complaint, etc., which was denied upon plaintiff’s representation that answers to the interrogatories would be served within three weeks. Plaintiff served answers (five months after the original service of the interrogatories) which, however, were largely not responsive and were evasive. Defendants thereupon moved to compel plaintiff to serve responsive answers, and defendants appealed the order denying that motion. Plaintiff’s cavalier conduct should not be rewarded. His belated purported answers, which followed his total disregard of Special Term’s orders, warrant reversal and the granting of defendants’ motion in its entirety, with costs. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Ross, Yesawich and Carro, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Edward P. Balazs, Appellant, v. New York City Employees’ Retirement System, Respondent.

Order and judgment (one paper) entered July 10, 1969, denying petitioner-appellant’s application for review of the determination of respondent-respondent New York City Employees’ Retirement System that petitioner-appellant is not entitled to a pension, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, and the application in all respects granted. Petitioner, a Transit Authority employee, filed for retirement on September 9, 1968, the effective date to be the following December 1. On October 25, the Authority filed 11 charges of theft against petitioner, 10 of which were sustained on November 6, the hearing officer recommending dismissal as of that date. Three days later, petitioner was advised of his dismissal accordingly, and that his pension application would be disallowed. Petitioner sought vitiation at Special Term of this determination, and that was denied. He appeals from the denial. His claim rests upon section B3-36.6 (subd. e, par. [5], cl. [a]) of the Administrative Code, which provides: “In the event that any such member who has a vested right to retirement allowance shall, prior to filing an application for retirement * * * or within thirty days next * * * be dismissed from the service * * * because of theft * * * the retirement system shall be discharged of all further obligations to such member, except that he shall have a right to a return of his accumulated salary deductions.” Quite obviously, the circumstances under examination do not operate, under the quoted section, to discharge respondent of its obligation to pay the pension, and we are bound by the clear and specific legislative determination to that effect, no matter how inequitable wc conceive the result to be. *Matter of Eberle*v. *LaGuardia*(285 N. Y. 247) seemingly to the opposite effect is inapplicable since it antedates the Administrative Code section. We are advised that section 23 of chapter 870 of the Laws of 1970, which became law on May 18,1970, states the “ intent ” of the section to be that “ such vested right to a retirement allowance and to retire shall be divested where the member, before *939the effective date of his retirement, is dismissed from the service *for any of*the designated types of misconduct ”. Assuming that such a post-operative interpretation has force, it is nonetheless inapplicable because it is not retroactive. Concur—Stevens, P. J., McGivern, Markewich and Steuer, JJ.