alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
MEMORANDUM  OF  UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
MR.  NG  TUNG  WO  PAUL  AND  SHAREHOLDERS  OF  TUNG  SHING  DEVELOPMENT
LIMITED
AND
TAGALDER  (2000)  INCORPORATED

This  is  to  confirm  that  Mr.  Ng Tung Wo Paul and shareholders of Tung Shing
Development  Limited  ("Ng")  agree  to  sell  and  Tagalder (2000) Incorporated
("Tagalder")  agrees  to purchase 20% of the ownership of Tung Shing Development
Ltd.  ("TSD")  under  the  following  terms  and  conditions.


1.     "TSD"  is  a  Hong  Kong  registered  company:

        Certificate  No:     07178935-000-04-00-7
        Address:             Flat/RM  1706, Bonham  Trade CTR, 50 Bonham Strand,
                             Hong Kong

2.     "TSD"  is  owned  by  "Ng".

3.     "TSD"  is  in  the  business  of  investment,  import/export, and general
trading  in  the plywood business.  "TSD" confirmed that "TSD" has 51% ownership
in  Jiangxi  Tung  Shing  Plywood  Factory  Co.,  Ltd  ("TSPF").

4.     The  Price
As  agreed  by both parties, the purchase price of 20% of the ownership is fixed
at  C$1,113,208.

5.     The  Management

Both parties agree that Tagalder will elect one director to the board and retain
the  current  management  of  "TSD"  until  further  notice.

6.     The  Business

Both  parties  agree  to  further  develop  and expand the current core business
through  corporate  restructure  and  acquisition.

7.     Payment

Both  parties  agree  that  Tagalder  will  issue  common  shares to pay for the
purchase.


<PAGE>


The  share  price:                  C$0.17
Total  new  shares  issued          6,548,280  shares.

8.     Options:

Tagalder  has  the  option  to purchase additional 20% for a total of 40% at the
same  terms  and  conditions  as  the  first  20%  within  six  months.

9.     Official  Approval

This  agreement  is  conditional  upon  the  following  official  approval:

Tagalder's  Board
Regulatory  Approval
Tagalder's  Shareholders

10.     Attachment

-     Last  3-year  Audited  Financial Statements of Tung Shing Development Ltd.
-     Certificate  of  Registration  of  Tung  Shing  Development  Ltd
-     Business  Executive  Summary
-     Evaluation

11.     This  Memorandum  of  Understanding  is  signed  on  January 8, 2001 by:

Signed by                                  Signed by
/s/ Tung  Wo  Paul  Ng                      /s/ Roger  Lam
_______________________                    _______________________________
MR.  NG  TUNG  WO  PAUL                    TAGALDER  (2000)  INCORPORATED


DATE:  JANUARY  8,2001                      DATE:  JANUARY  8,  2001


<PAGE>
#### EDWARD MILLINER *v.*ANNA MILLINER.

Divorce — kink—wilful absence — confinement to one man.

Where a wife who leaves her husband shortly after marriage,declaring she will not be confined to *one man9*and continues absent for three years, it is cause for divorce.

Divorce. Cause — three years wilful absence.

These parties were voluntarily married; but it was in evidence, that at the *in-fare*following the wedding, ‘ she *took*a kink,’ and threatened to leave; but the father of the groom persuaded her to go with her husband. She did do so, and staid only a few days, and left him, saying, she would not be confined to *one*man, and has never returned for more than three years. , Divorce decreed.
§ 797.20 Procedures to request a hearing. ( a ) To request a hearing, an employee must send a written request to the Executive Director within 15 calendar days after the employee's receipt of the Notice. If the employee files a request for a hearing after the expiration of the 15th calendar day, NCUA may accept the request if the employee can show that the delay was the result of circumstances beyond the employee's control or the employee failed to receive actual notice of the filing deadline.
( b ) The request for a hearing must be signed by the employee and must fully identify and explain with reasonable specificity all the facts, evidence, and witnesses, if any, that support the employee's position. The request must also state whether the employee is requesting an oral or documentary hearing. If an oral hearing is requested, the request shall state why the matter cannot be resolved by a review of documentary evidence alone.
( c ) The failure of an employee to request a hearing will be considered an admission by the employee that the debt exists in the amount specified in the Notice.
Motion Granted; Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 16, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00205-CV

GENE JOHNSON, Appellant

V.

AT & T, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 270th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-33209

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a summary judgment signed November 13, 2012. The 

record reflects that appellant’s motion for new trial was electronically filed Friday, 

December 14, 2012, 31 days after the judgment was signed. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 

329b(a) (requiring a motion for new trial to be filed within 30 days after the 

judgment is signed). The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the 

judgment is signed when appellant has not filed a timely motion for new trial. See 

Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. Therefore, in the absence of a timely-filed motion for new 
2

trial, appellant’s notice of appeal was due on or before December 13, 2013. If a 

timely motion for new trial is filed, the notice of appeal must be filed within 90 

days after the date the judgment is signed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a). Appellant’s 

notice of appeal was not filed until March 4, 2013, more than 105 days after 

judgment, beyond the time that could be extended, had his motion for new trial 

been filed timely. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3 (permitting appellate court to grant an 

extension of time if the notice of appeal is filed within 15 days of its due date). 

On April 23, 2013, notification was transmitted to all parties of the court’s 

intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless appellant filed a 

response, on or before May 6, 2013, demonstrating this court’s jurisdiction. In 

addition, on April 24, 2013, appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, raising 

the same jurisdictional issues as in the court’s notice. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). 

Appellant has not filed a response to the court’s notice or to appellee’s motion. 

Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal, and we order 

the appeal dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Frost and Donovan.
**Exhibit 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.333-122403) pertaining to the 1995 Stock Option and Restricted Stock Plan and the 2004 EquityIncentive Plan of Adeza Biomedical Corporation of our reports datedMarch 9, 2006, with respect tothe financial statements of Adeza Biomedical Corporation, Adeza Biomedical Corporation management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectivenessof internal control over financial reporting of Adeza Biomedical Corporation included in thisAnnual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005./s/ Ernst & Young LLPPalo Alto, California
#### BARNES *v.*DECKER.

Certiorari to justices — concurrent jurisdiction of Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court lias concurrent jurisdiction, with the courts of Common Pleas, to examine into the proceedings of justices of the peace, and other inferior tribunals, but the jurisdiction is more conveniently exercised by the Court of Common Pleas, and application should be made there for redress, unless special cause exist for coming into the Supreme Court.

Application for a writ of error to a justice of the peace.

By the Court.

This Court has the power, concurrent with the courts of Common Pleas, to issue writs of certiorari to justices of the peace; and the writ of certiorari is most generally used with us as a writ of error. It has, however, hitherto been held inexpedient and inconvenient for this Court to exercise jurisdiction to correct the errors of justices of the peace, except in extraordinary cases. In *Burrows*v. *Vandevier, et al. 3 O. R.*383, this Court determined that the *concurrent*jurisdiction to remove proceedings from tribunals, inferior to the Common Pleas, should only be exercised in ex*208traordinary cases. In common controversies before inferior tribunals, the' Court of Common Pleas, which sits much oftener than this Court,.can afford redress with less delay and expense, and greater convenience to all concerned, than this Court; and application should be made there, unless good cause exists for the application here. Unless such cause be shown in this case, the writ will be refused.

No other cause was shown.
# Official Journal L 66/2019

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 66 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 627 March 2019 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 66

English edition

Legislation

Volume 627 March 2019

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/368 of 4 March 2019 repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 444/2013 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature | 1 |
| | | DIRECTIVES |
| | * | Commission Delegated Directive (EU) 2019/369 of 13 December 2018 amending the Annex to Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA as regards the inclusion of new psychoactive substances in the definition of ‘drug’ | 3 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/368 of 4 March 2019 repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 444/2013 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature

1

DIRECTIVES

*

Commission Delegated Directive (EU) 2019/369 of 13 December 2018 amending the Annex to Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA as regards the inclusion of new psychoactive substances in the definition of ‘drug’

3

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
# Coole

# y

M . Anne Swanson + 1 202 776 2534 aswanson@cooley.com March 3, 2016 U .S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1 200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 By Electronic Filing

Re: Application for Amendment to Exemption 11857, Liberty Mutual LLC FAA Docket 2015-0513 Dear Sir or Madam: On June 19, 2015, the FAA issued Exemption 11857 under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 to Liberty Mutual Insurance Company ("Liberty M utual"), allowing commercial operation of the Liberty 1, Liberty 2, Liberty 3, and Liberty 4 craft, with typical conditions for aerial data collection. Shortly thereafter, on August 24, 2015, Liberty Mutual filed a request to amend Exemption 11857 to permit operation of an unmanned aircraft system ("UAS") closer than 500 feet to nonparticipating persons, vehicles, or structures to conduct roof and building inspections. Liberty Mutual sought permission to operate its UAS within 25 feet of the buildings or structures being inspected. On February 25, 2016, the FAA requested comment on this amendment request. 2 Comments are due on March 16, 2016. On September 10, 2015, Liberty Mutual filed a request to amend Exemption 11857 to add an additional UAS,the DJI Phantom 3 — Professional, a small UAV weighing 2.82 pounds, to be designated "Liberty 5." The amendment remains pending. This letter requests an amendment to add one more new craft —the DJI Phantom 4
— which was first announced to the public on March 1, and which weighs 3.04 pounds. Operations and maintenance of this craft will be conducted in accordance with the operations manual published by the manufacturer. Liberty Mutual intends to use Liberty 5 and the DJI Phantom 4 to conduct the building i nspections allowed under Exemption 11857, as modified by the August 24, 2015 request for amendment to that Exemption. Consequently, Liberty Mutual respectfully requests that the already-pending September 10, 2015 request and this request —both of which relate only to the addition of craft — be considered together with the August 24 amendment as the FAA takes action on the comments the FAA has requested in the February 25, 2016 Federal Register notice.

' See Exemption No. 11857, June 19, 2015, Docket No. FAA-2015-0513. 2 See Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 81 Fed Reg. 9578 (Feb. 25, 2016).

Cooley LLP 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004-2400

t: (202) 842-7800 f: (202) 842-7899 cooley.com

# Coole

# y

U .S. Department of Transportation March 3, 2016 Page Two If you have any questions, please contact us at your earliest convenience.

, ~` Ver trul , ~rours,

M . Anne Swanson J .G. Harrington Counsel for Liberty Mutual Insurance Company cc: Mr. Rick May M r. Jake Troutman M r. Dean Griffith, Esquire M r. Dan Ngo M r. Brendan Picha

Cooley LLP 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004-2400

t: (202) 842-7800 f: (202) 842-7899 cooley.com
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS OFFR,OiBOXtl2308>).eAP.IJOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 STATE OF TEXAS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE U.S. POSTAGE » PiTNEY BOWES



# UTF

r-43B -75aBO *$.^ 

## 10/5/2015 PI >5Af\XoSAoc 

# JOHNSON, VICTOR VEE-JAY%*lr.^N:424639A-86 _,.--_ 

# On this day, the application fo^to^Wrjtrf #>eas Corpus has been received 

# and presentedtothe Court. Sgffi^ Abel ^^ C)erk ZIP 78701 02 m 00014016030CT 08 2015

VICTOR VEE-JAY JOHNSON BETO I UNIT-TDC# 1501027 1391. FM 3328 

### TENNESSEE COLONY, TX 75880 WR-83,983-01
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 28, 2014

d0421 

# Order

Clerk April 28, 2014

147993

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147993

COA: 309417

Wayne CC: 11

- 007105

- FH

JEROME LAMONT MILLER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 15, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, be cause we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
§ 792.18 What if my request is urgent and I cannot wait for the records? You may request expedited processing of your request if you can show a compelling need for the records. In cases where your request for expedited processing is granted or if NCUA has determined to expedite the response, it will be processed as soon as practicable. ( a ) To demonstrate a compelling need for expedited processing, you must provide a certified statement. The statement, certified by you to be true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief, must demonstrate that: ( 1 ) The failure to obtain the records on an expedited basis could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual; or
( 2 ) The requester is a representative of the news media, as defined in § 792.20, and there is urgency to inform the public concerning actual or alleged NCUA activity.
( b ) In response to a request for expedited processing, the Information Center will notify you of the determination within ten working days of receipt of the request. If the Information Center denies your request for expedited processing, you may file an appeal pursuant to the procedures set forth in § 792.28, and NCUA will expeditiously respond to the appeal.
( c ) The Information Center will normally process requests in the order they are received in the separate processing tracks. However, in NCUA's discretion, a particular request may be processed out of turn.
[63 FR 14338, Mar. 25, 1998, as amended at 73 FR 56938, Oct. 1, 2008]
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24035-23 Filed:04/19/23 Entered:04/19/23 22:37:35 Desc:

Exhibit Page 1 of 4
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24035-23 Filed:04/19/23 Entered:04/19/23 22:37:35 Desc:

Exhibit Page 2 of 4
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24035-23 Filed:04/19/23 Entered:04/19/23 22:37:35 Desc:

Exhibit Page 3 of 4
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24035-23 Filed:04/19/23 Entered:04/19/23 22:37:35 Desc:

Exhibit Page 4 of 4
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 972/2004

of 13 May 2004         

fixing the maximum export refund on oats in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1814/2003

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (2), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1814/2003 of 15 October 2003 on a special intervention measure for cereals in Finland and Sweden for the marketing year 2003/04 (3), and in particular Article 9 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For tenders notified from 7 to 13 May 2004, pursuant to the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1814/2003, the maximum refund on exportation of oats shall be EUR 21,98/t.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 14 May 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 13 May 2004.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 181, 1.7.1992, p. 21. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1104/2003 (OJ L 158, 27.6.2003, p. 1).

(2)OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1431/2003 (OJ L 203, 12.8.2003, p. 16).

(3)OJ L 265, 16.10.2003, p. 25.

----
#### § 313.127 Correcting and updating referral.

If, after referring a past-due legally enforceable debt to FMS as provided in § 313.125, the FDIC determines that an error has been made with respect to the information transmitted to FMS, or if the FDIC receives a payment or credits a payment to the account of the debtor referred to FMS for offset, or if the debt amount is otherwise incorrect, the FDIC shall promptly notify FMS and make the appropriate correction of the FDIC's records. FDIC will provide certification as required under § 313.123 for any increases to amounts owed. In the event FMS rejects an FDIC certification for failure to comply with § 323.123, the FDIC may resubmit the debt with a corrected certification.

[67 FR 48527, July 25, 2002. Redesignated at 71 FR 75661, Dec. 18, 2006]
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. MT00-5-000]

Take notice that on April 18, 2000 Egan Hub Partners, L.P. (Egan) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, proposed to be effective on May 18, 2000: Second Revised Sheet No. 87, Third Revised Sheet No. 88.

Egan states that the revised tariff sheets are being filed to update the description of Egan's compliance with Order No. 497 and the Commission's marketing affiliate regulations.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-10469  Filed 4-26-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M