alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1


 


 


Loan Agreement


(English Translation)


 


	Lender (Party A):	China Minsheng Banking Corp., Ltd.
	 	 
	Borrower (Party B):	Forlink Software Corporation, Inc.


 


The lender (Party A) and borrower (Party
B) are entering into this loan agreement providing for a loan from Party A to Party B on the following terms which have been reached
through negotiation:


 


(1)     Principal
Amount: Party B will borrow RMB 2,000,000 from Party A.


 


(2)     Term:
The term of the loan shall be one year, commencing from the day following funding of the loan by Party A, from June 4, 2012
to June 4, 2013. Within the term, interest will be charged on the principal amount borrowed
based on the applicable bank short-term interest rate of 8.528%. Interest will be due and payable monthly on the 20th
day from July 2012 to May 2013; the last interest will be due and pay together with the principal amount, on the maturity date
of June 4, 2013. 


 


(3)     Guarantee:
Party B must repay the principal and accrued interest under the loan to Party A on the due date. Penalty interest shall accrue
to Party A if repayment is not made on or before the above agreed maturity date.


 


(4)     Penalty interest: If (Party
B) fails to repay the loan when due, the interest shall accrue thereafter at an annual rate which is double the original interest
rate above.


 


(5)     Additional Obligations: If
Party B fails to repay the loan to Party A when due, Party A shall have the right to collect, and enforce any of its other legal
rights as a creditor, under applicable PRC law.


 


(6)     For any matters relating to
this agreement that are not contained in this agreement, Party A and Party B agree to execute one or more further supplementary
agreements after a negotiation between the parties.


 


(7)     Upon
execution by both parties, each supplementary agreement shall have the same legal force and effect as this agreement.


 


(8)     This
agreement is executed in two counterparts, and each of Party A and Party B will keep one copy.


 


 


	Party A:	China Minsheng Banking Corp., Ltd. [Corporate Seal]
	 	 
	Party B:	Forlink Software Corporation, Inc. [Corporate Seal]
#### Maurice Kristian LEE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Raymond ANDREWS, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 01-15872.

D.C. No. CV-00-06015-OWW.

D.C. No. CR-94-44-DWH.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 10, 2002.*

Decided June 17, 2002.

Before RYMER, T.G. NELSON, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Maurice Kristian Lee, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Lee challenges the legality of his conviction and sentence imposed after pleading guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C §§ 846 and 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.1 We review the district court’s dismissal of a *335§ 2241 petition de novo, *Tripati v. Henman,*843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th Cir.1988), and we affirm.

Lee contends that he was a minor at the time he was involved with the drug conspiracy, and that this deprived the federal court of jurisdiction over him. This is a challenge to the legality of his conviction and sentence, and Lee has failed to demonstrate that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is an inadequate or ineffective remedy. *See Moore v. Reno,*185 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (concluding that petitioner may not avoid the limitations imposed on successive petitions by styling his petition as one pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241). Because Lee has not carried his burden of showing that a section 2255 motion would be inadequate or ineffective, the district court properly dismissed his petition for habeas corpus. See *Tripati,*843 F.2d at 1162 (stating that section 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective merely because the sentencing court denies relief).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. We reject the government's contention that Lee’s notice of appeal was untimely. We construe Lee's December 5, 2000, pleading as a timely filed tolling motion. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4)(A); *United States v. Seesing,*234 F.3d 456, 462-63 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring liberal construction of prisoners’ pro se pleadings). Lee’s notice of appeal, filed within 22 days of the ruling on this motion, was timely. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B).
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 105 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
                               H. R. 105

    To amend the Act of September 30, 1961, to exclude professional 
baseball from the antitrust exemption applicable to certain television 
                               contracts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

Mr. Bilirakis introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Act of September 30, 1961, to exclude professional 
baseball from the antitrust exemption applicable to certain television 
                               contracts.

    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 ``Baseball Antitrust Restoration 
Amendment of 1995''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

    The Act of September 30, 1961 (15 U.S.C. 1291-1294) is amended--
            (1) in the first section by striking ``baseball,'' each 
        place it appears,
            (2) in sections 4 and 6 by striking ``baseball,'' each 
        place it appears, and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
    ``Sec. 7. The antitrust laws referred to in section 1 shall apply 
with respect to joint agreements of the kind described in such section 
entered into by or among persons engaging in or conducting the 
organized professional team sport of baseball.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.

    (a) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this Act 
and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the date of 
the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Application of Amendments.--With respect to joint agreements 
entered into before the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
amendments made by section 2 shall not apply until the expiration of 
the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Order entered December 1 9 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 13 - 01603 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF Z.M.C. AND R.B.C ., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1 99 - 52980 - 2008 

### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s motion to review t wo trial court orders dated December 2, 2013 . One order sustain s the court reporter’s contest to appellant’s affidavit of indigence and the other order “APPROV ES the Affidavit” . . . an d “ORDER[ S ] that [appellant] may proceed as a pauper in this cause and is not required to pay the filing fees incurred or to give security thereof.” In accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1(j)(3), we ORDER Sheri J. Vecera, Official Court Reporter , to file the record of the December 2, 2013 indigency hearing no later than December 22 , 201 3 . No extensions will be granted. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 20.1(j)(4). We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the Honorable Angela M. Tucker, Presiding Judge, 199 th Judicial District Court; Sheri J. Vecera; and all parties. /Elizabeth Lang

- Miers/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
First Supplemental Indenture



 EXHIBIT 4.4 
 FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE 
 DATED AS OF NOVEMBER 1, 2006 
 BETWEEN 
 LINCOLN NATIONAL CORPORATION

 AS ISSUER 
 AND 
 THE BANK OF NEW YORK 
 AS TRUSTEE 







 FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE, dated as of November 1, 2006 (the “First Supplemental
Indenture”), between Lincoln National Corporation, a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Indiana (the “Company”) and The Bank of New York, as trustee (the “Trustee”), supplementing and
amending the Indenture (the “Indenture”), dated as of September 15, 1994, by and between the Company and the Trustee. 
 WHEREAS, the Company executed and delivered the Indenture to the Trustee to provide for the future issuance of the Company’s debentures, notes or other evidence of indebtedness (the “Securities”), to be issued from time to
time in one or more series as might be determined by the Company under the Indenture; 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 9.01 of the
Indenture, the Company desires to enter into this First Supplemental Indenture to supplement and amend the Indenture, provided that such action shall not affect any Securities Outstanding of any series created prior to the date of this First
Supplemental Indenture; and 
 WHEREAS, upon execution of this First Supplemental Indenture, the Indenture shall be modified, and every
Holder of Securities of any series thereafter issued, authenticated and delivered under the Indenture shall be bound thereby. 
 NOW
THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises, the Company covenants and agrees with the Trustee as follows: 
 ARTICLE I

 DEFINITIONS 
 Section 1.1
Definition of Terms. 
 Unless the context otherwise requires, a term not defined herein that is defined in the Indenture has the same
meaning when used in this First Supplemental Indenture. 
 ARTICLE II 
 REDEMPTION OF SECURITIES 
 Section 2.1 Election to Redeem; Notice to Trustee.

 The first sentence of Section 3.02 of the Indenture is hereby replaced in its entirety by the following: 
 The election of the Company to redeem any Securities shall be evidenced by a Board Resolution or an Officers’ Certificate. 
 ARTICLE III 
 TRUSTEE

 Section 3.1 Trustee. 
 The
Trustee makes no representations as to the validity or sufficiency of this First Supplemental Indenture. The recitals and statements herein are deemed to be those of the Company and not of the Trustee. 
  

 -2- 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this First Supplemental Indenture to be duly executed
by their respective officers thereunto duly authorized, on the date or dates indicated in the acknowledgments and as of the day and year first above written. 
  

			
	LINCOLN NATIONAL CORPORATION, as Issuer
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Frederick J. Crawford

	Name:	 	Frederick J. Crawford
	Title:	 	Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Duane Bernt

	Name:	 	Duane Bernt
	Title:	 	Vice President and Treasurer
	
	THE BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Mary LaGumina

	Name:	 	Mary LaGumina
	Title:	 	Vice President


  

 -3-
§ 13.8 Protection for motorcades and other places associated with a visit qualifying under section 202(7) of Title 3, U.S. Code. ( a ) State and local governments furnishing services, personnel, equipment, and facilities to provide protection for motorcades and at other places associated with a visit qualifying under section 202(7) of Title 3, U.S. Code may forward to the Assistant Secretary a bill for reimbursement for the personnel, equipment, facilities, and services utilized in providing such protection.
( b ) Requests for payments under this section shall conform to the procedures established elsewhere in this part governing reimbursements arising out of an extraordinary protective need.
[45 FR 30622, May 9, 1980]
#### In the Matter of John Gordon, Petitioner, v John Burge, as Superintendent of Auburn Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[803 NYS2d 476]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Cayuga County [Peter E. Corning, A.J.], entered December 6, 2004) to review a determination of respondent. *1147The determination found after a Tier II hearing that petitioner had violated various inmate rules.

It is hereby ordered that said proceeding be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs as moot *(see Matter of Free v Coombe,*234 AD2d 996 [1996]). Present— Pigott, Jr., P.J., Scudder, Kehoe, Smith and Pine, JJ.
§ 20.215 What must I include in my drug-free awareness program? You must establish an ongoing drug-free awareness program to inform employees about— ( a ) The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;
( b ) Your policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace;
( c ) Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs; and
( d ) The penalties that you may impose upon them for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace.
#### § 7.936-1 Qualified possession source investment income.

For purposes of this section, interest earned after September 30, 1976 (less applicable deductions), by a domestic corporation, engaged in the active conduct of a trade or business in Puerto Rico, which elects the application of section 936 with respect to deposits with certain Puerto Rican financial institutions will be treated as qualified possession source investment income within the meaning of section 936(d)(2) if (1) the interest qualifies for exemption from Puerto Rican income tax under regulations issued by the Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico, as in effect on September 28, 1976, under the authority of section 2(j) of the Puerto Rico Industrial Incentive Act of 1963, as amended, (2) the interest is from sources within Puerto Rico (within the meaning of section 936(d)(2)(A)), and (3) the funds with respect to which the interest is earned are derived from the active conduct of a trade or business in Puerto Rico or from investment of funds so derived.

[T.D. 7452, 41 FR 56794, Dec. 30, 1976]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - [Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0354]

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Mental Models Study of Farmers' Understanding and Implementation of Good Agricultural Practices” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Daniel Gittleson, Office of Information Management (HFA-710), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,                         *Daniel.Gittleson@fda.hhs.gov*, 301-796-5156.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of March 24, 2009 (74 FR 12364), the agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0639. The approval expires on July 31, 2012. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at                     *http://www.reginfo.gov/​public/​do/​PRAMain*.                

Dated: August 11, 2009.

Jeffrey Shuren,

Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.

[FR Doc. E9-19787 Filed 8-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
#### In the Matter of Monroe Square Associates, L.P., Appellant, v Board of Assessors et al., Respondents.

[803 NYS2d 844]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (William E Eolito, J.), entered October 1, 2004. The order denied the motion for an order confirming that the settlement of the subject tax assessment review proceeding is subject to the terms ofRFTL 727 (1).

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the motion is dismissed.

*986Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding in 2000 challenging the tax assessment on its property for the tax year 2000-2001. The parties reached a “proposed settlement” in 2004, reducing the assessment for that tax year contingent upon a final judicial determination that RPTL 727 does not apply to render that assessment applicable for the three years subsequent to the tax year 2000-2001, i.e., 2001-2002 through 2003-2004. The proposed settlement further provided that the settlement would be null and void should it be determined that RPTL 727 applies and that the assessed valuation set forth in the proposed settlement shall be changed for such property for the following three assessment rolls. Supreme Court issued an order (hereafter, proposed order) setting forth the terms of the proposed settlement and directing that “[t]his settlement is made subject to a determination of the applicability of [RPTL 727].” The proposed order further directed that it “shall not be filed in the Monroe County Clerk’s office . . . and shall not be deemed final” until the applicability of RPTL 727 is determined.

Petitioner thereafter moved for “an order confirming that the settlement of the subject tax assessment review proceeding is subject to the terms of’ RPTL 727 (1). Petitioner appeals from an order denying its motion. We reverse the order and dismiss the motion.

“The courts of New York do not issue advisory opinions for the fundamental reason that in this State ‘[t]he giving of such opinions is not the exercise of the judicial function’ ” *(Cuomo v Long Is. Light. Co.,*71 NY2d 349, 354 [1988]). We conclude herein that, were we to reach the merits of petitioner’s motion, we thereby would be rendering an advisory opinion. RPTL 727 (1) provides that it applies only to a “final court order or judgment,” and the proposed order approving the settlement herein expressly provided that it “shall not be deemed final” until the issue of the applicability of RPTL 727 (1) is “finally determined (i.e., after exhausting all judicial review).” Because there is no “final court order or judgment” reducing the assessment for the tax year 2000-2001 (RPTL 727 [1]), the issue concerning the applicability of RPTL 727 (1) to the following three tax years is not properly before us. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Pine, JJ.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

#### § 250.5 Manner of payment.

Payment will be made by check drawn on the United States Treasury. Checks will be mailed to the payee at the address indicated on the voucher application, unless subsequent to the issue of the voucher application the Treasury Department receives a written request from the payee to deliver the check to him at some other address. Where the award has been entered in favor of more than one person, only one check will be drawn in making payment unless the payees specify the share of each and request separate checks.

[31 FR 9418, July 9, 1966]
§ 19.835 Are debarment proceedings formal? ( a ) Debarment proceedings are conducted in a fair and informal manner. The debarring official may use flexible procedures to allow you as a respondent to present matters in opposition. In so doing, the debarring official is not required to follow formal rules of evidence or procedure in creating an official record upon which the official will base the decision whether to debar.
( b ) You or your representative must submit any documentary evidence you want the debarring official to consider.
Exhibit
      32.2




ICONIX
      BRAND GROUP, INC.




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,




AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF




THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Iconix Brand Group, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 (the “Report”), I, Warren
      Clamen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that to the best of my knowledge:




(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and




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




/s/
                Warren ClamenWarren
                ClamenChief
                Financial OfficerDate:
                November 5, 2008
§ 1020.100 Definitions. Refer to § 1010.100 of this Chapter for general definitions not noted herein. To the extent there is a differing definition in § 1010.100 of this chapter, the definition in this Section is what applies to part 1020. Unless otherwise indicated, for purposes of this part: ( a ) *Account.* For purposes of § 1020.220: ( 1 ) *Account* means a formal banking relationship established to provide or engage in services, dealings, or other financial transactions including a deposit account, a transaction or asset account, a credit account, or other extension of credit. *Account* also includes a relationship established to provide a safety deposit box or other safekeeping services, or cash management, custodian, and trust services.
( 2 ) *Account* does not include: ( i ) A product or service where a formal banking relationship is not established with a person, such as check-cashing, wire transfer, or sale of a check or money order;
( ii ) An account that the bank acquires through an acquisition, merger, purchase of assets, or assumption of liabilities; or
( iii ) An account opened for the purpose of participating in an employee benefit plan established under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
( b ) *Customer.* For the purposes of § 1020.220: ( 1 ) *Customer* means: ( i ) A person that opens a new account; and
( ii ) An individual who opens a new account for: ( A ) An individual who lacks legal capacity, such as a minor; or
( B ) An entity that is not a legal person, such as a civic club.
( 2 ) *Customer* does not include: ( i ) A financial institution regulated by a Federal functional regulator or a bank regulated by a State bank regulator;
( ii ) A person described in § 1020.315(b)(2) through (b)(4); or
( iii ) A person that has an existing account with the bank, provided that the bank has a reasonable belief that it knows the true identity of the person.
[75 FR 65812, Oct. 26, 2010, as amended at 85 FR 57137, Sept. 16, 2020