alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 23

- 00174

- CR

E RIC F OBBS

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal fro m Criminal District Court

No. 2

of Tarrant County ( 1648121 )

May 23, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was error in the trial court’s judgment s . T he judgment to Count

- One is modified to

del ete the $100 fine and re flect that no fine was assessed

. We affirm the Count

- One

judgment as m odified

.

T he judgment to Count

- Three is m odified to delete the portion of the

judgment identifying the off ense as indecency with a child by se xual contact andreflect the offense as sexual assault of a chil d. We affirm the Count

- Three ju dg ment

as modi fied.

We affirm the C ount

- F our and C ount

- Fi v e judgments

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Dana Womack Justice Dana Womack
Exhibit 10.50


 


SECOND ADDENDUM 


TO 


STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT


 


This Second Addendum to
the ‘Stock Purchase Agreement’ (“Addendum”) dated January 13, 2018 is an addendum to: 1) the Stock Purchase
Agreement by and amongst Seven Stars Cloud Group, Inc, Delaware Board of Trade Holdings, Inc., and Atlantic Bridge Investments,
LLC, DBOT-I LLC., Michael J. Ramone, and Dennis Toner executed on December 18, 2017; and 2) the Stock Purchase Agreement by and
amongst Seven Stars Cloud Group, Inc, Delaware Board of Trade Holdings, Inc., and DBOT-I LLC. The parties shall be referred to
individually, or collectively as the “Parties”.


 


WHEREAS, the original purchasing
party in the Stock Purchase Agreement was Seven Stars Cloud Group, Inc.,


 


WHEREAS, the Parties now
wish to change the purchasing party from Seven Stars Cloud Group, Inc. to its wholly owned subsidiary ‘China Broadband, Ltd.’,
a Cayman Islands limited liability company.


 


THEREFORE, the Parties
hereby agree to the abovementioned change to the Stock Purchase Agreement.


 


Except as expressly provided
in this Addendum, all other terms, conditions, and provisions of the Stock Purchase Agreement shall continue in force and effect.
The Stock Purchase Agreement, as modified by this Addendum, contains the full and complete understanding between the Parties and
supersedes all prior negotiations and understandings of the parties, and no modification of any provision hereof will be valid
unless in a signed writing.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed
as of the date set forth above.


 


	SEVEN STARS CLOUD GROUP, INC.	 
	 	 	 
	 	/s/ Robert G. Benya	 
	 	 	 
	By:	Robert G.
    Benya	 
	Its:	President and Chief
    Revenue Officer	 



 






    	 	 	 



     


    

 


	DELAWARE BOARD OF TRADE HOLDINGS, INC.	 
	 	 	 
	 	/s/ John F. Wallace	 
	 	 	 
	By:	John F. Wallace	 
	Its:	Chairman	 
	 	 	 
	ATLANTIC BRIDGE INVESTMENTS, LLC	 
	 	 	 
	 	/s/ Jose Albert Guadalupe	 
	 	 	 
	By:	Jose Albert Guadalupe	 
	Its:	Director	 
	 	 	 
	DBOT-I LLC	 
	 	 	 
	 	/s/ John Hynansky	 
	 	 	 
	By:	John Hynansky	 
	Its:	Manager	 
	 	 	 
	 	/s/ Michael J. Ramone	 
	 	 	 
	Michael J. Ramone	 
	 	 	 
	 	/s/ Dennis Toner	 
	 	 	 
	Dennis Toner
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Orbit/FR, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the three and six months ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Israel
Adan, President and Chief Executive 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:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) 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 results of operations of the
Company.

August 14, 2006


/s/ Israel Adan
-------------------------------------
Israel Adan
President and Chief Executive Officer


                                                                              20
No. 60223.

protests 246450-K and 246449-K (New York).

#### Artiflor Mfg. Co. *v.*United States,

*356Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items involved are pine or cedar cones, painted or chemically treated natural plants, similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 59051, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT 10.9




 


Supplemental Lease Agreement (English Translation)







Lessor (Party A): Beijing Na Sheng Hong Sale and Service Center


Address:


Entrusted Agent:












Lessee (Party B): Shenzhen Portercity Investment and Management Co., Ltd.


Address:


Entrusted Agent:







Whereas Party A and Party B enter into “House Lease Contract” (hereinafter referred to as “Contract”) this 27th Nov, 2017. Both Parties, through friendly negotiation, hereby set out this Supplementary Agreement, and the said agreement shall be binding to both Parties.







Article I House Decoration







Party A delivers ready-to-live house to Party B and agrees Party B for house decoration. Party B shall also be responsible for the fee arise from decoration, the application for firefighting matters and the fee caused herein.







Article II Rent-free Period







2.1 Both Party A and Party B agree that the rent-free period for the house leasing shall start form 1st Dec. 2017 to 28th Feb, 2018, the administrative fee during this period shall be borne by Party B.







2.2 The expiry of rent-free period. The official rental fee shall be calculated from 1st March, 2018.







Article III Deposit and House Rental Fee







3.1 Deposit. Upon the signing of the agreement, Party B shall pay 100,000 RMB as deposit. The said deposit shall be transferred as house leasing deposit under the Article IX of Contract upon both Parties complete the filing procedures of house leasing with the related departments.







3.2 Upon the completion of the house filing procedures by both Parties, Party B shall pay the following fee to Party A:







3.2.1 House leasing deposit. Party B shall sufficiently supplement the house leasing deposit to Party B in accordance with the Article IX of the Contract.
















3.2.2 Rental fee. Party A is responsible for paying the rental fee for the first two months. Starting from the third month upon the expiry of the rent-free period, Party B shall pay monthly rental fee to Party A before 10th

 




Article IV Agency Fee







The agency fee arise from the Contract signed by both Parties, the said fee shall be borne by Party B.







Article V Miscellaneous







5.1 The Agreement shall come into force upon the signature.







5.2 The agreement shall be deemed as an integral part of the Contract and bear the equal legal validity upon the said agreement come into force.







5.3 In addition to the amendments stipulate explicitly in the agreement, the rest part of the Contract shall remain fully validity. Provided that any conflict arise with the Contract, the agreement shall be prevail.







5.4 the Agreement shall be made in triplicate, one for Party A, one for Party B and one for contract registration authority.







Party A (Seal): Company Seal







Legal Representative: /s/ Wang Zhongyong


Entrusted Agent:







Date: November 27, 2017


Party B (Seal): Company Seal







Legal Representative:


Entrusted Agent:  /s/ Zhenquan Li


Date: November 27, 2017
AEROSPACE 

Bombardier Inc. 

400 chemin de la Côte-Vertu West 

Dorval, Québec, Canada H4S 1Y9 

www.bombardier.com 

TEL 514-855-5000 

FAX 514-855-7401 

August 3, 2010 

Re: Docket No. FAA-2010-0636 

Bombardier Aerospace is requesting an extension to the comment period for NPRM 10-10, 

“Airplane and Engine Certification Requirements in Supercooled Large Drop, Mixed Phase, and 

Ice Crystal Icing Conditions” in accordance with 14 CFR §11.47. 

The published comment period is currently just over 60 days. We find this insufficient for a 

proposal of this magnitude. The comment period for NPRMs has typically been 90 days for 

proposed rule changes of far lesser significance and complexity. Given the potential impact of 

this rule, and the magnitude of the effort required to review it, we feel the comment period 

should be 120 days. At a meeting with the GAMA Technical Policy Committee in May of this 

year, the FAA was informed that 30-day comment periods for draft policy and guidance material 

was too short and that comment periods of 60-90 days were required to conduct sufficient 

review. A 60-day comment period for NPRM 10-10 is a step in the opposite direction. 

The public interest is best served by allowing a thorough review of major rulemaking proposals 

by all stakeholders; the current comment period for this NPRM is insufficient for Bombardier 

Aerospace to assist in this review. A brief delay to allow a rigorous inspection of this proposal by 

reviewers independent from the regulating agency would result in a more complete analysis and 

could result in feedback that would lead to a more successful implementation of the final rule, 

both in terms of its technical effectiveness and its costs that will ultimately be passed on to the 

flying public. Conversely, a delay on the order of two months would not impose a significant 

delay in the implementation of a final rule given the current certification timeframe of 

approximately five years for new type certificated aircraft and would have no impact on public 

safety.

Docket Operations, M–30 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Room W12–140, West Building Ground Floor, 

Washington DC 20590-0001
. Case No. 9,648.

#### MILLARD et al. v. CRAIG et al.

[18 Betts, D. C. MS. 4.]

District Court, S. D New York.

January 27, 1851.

Practice in Admiralty — Costs of Attachment.

[Respondent in an admiralty suit in personam, after an attachment has been levied, upon a return “Not found.” before being permitted to defend the cause on its merits, should pay the costs of the attachment]

[This was a libel by Millard and Mills against James E. Craig and others, owners of the scow Globe. The scow was taken on foreign attachment, and the question is now as to costs thereon.]

BETTS, District Judge.

The warrant of arrest in this cause was accompanied by a clause of foreign attachment The marshal returned the defendants “Not found,” and that he had attached the scow Globe, as their property. Sometime subsequent to this return, and after the default of the defendants had been, taken, they were allowed by the court, on their motion, to come in and defend the case, on giving the stipulation or bond required by rule 6 of the supreme court. That bond has been given, and the question now is, which party is to pay the costs accrued on the foreign attachment? The property arrested should now be given up, the end for which it was attached having been secured. Sup. Ct. Rule 101. But it rests in the discretion of the court to adjudge, in matters of costs, according to the equity of the parties. Prima facie, the party relieved from a default, or to whom a favor in forwarding his defence is accorded, will be chargeable with the costs created by the proceeding from which lie is relieved. Sup. Ct. Rules 10, 40. Here there is no open motion by the defendants to discharge the scow. Their interpretation of the rule is that it becomes released by virtue of the appearance of the parties personally affected pursuant to the rules. This may be so, but it does not therefore dispose of the question whether they are exonerated from costs thereby, or are chargeable with them. In my opinion, it is an equity on the part of the libellant, incident to the appearance of a defendant so pronounced against, that the defendant should satisfy the costs incurred in bringing him into court. If any facts exist on his part tending to counterbalance that general equity, they should be made to appear by him. In observance of all particulars other than what are presented by these papers, I think the defendants come within the rule, and that they must pay the taxable costs on the foreign attachment, as a condition to being permitted to defend the cause on its merits. Order accordingly.
Before the Third Division,

April 27, 1966

No. P66/46.

protests 64/22125 (B), etc. (New York).

#### W. Kay Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Landis, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of cups and saucers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *W. Kay*Company, *Inc.*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 130, C.D. 2484), the claim of the plantiff was sustained.
QBffice of toe Elttotnep 43eneral 

&ate of ?ICexas 

DAN MORALES 

Al-muNEy GENERAL 

THE OPINION "O-1669" MUST BE REQUESTED FROM TEXAS STATE LIBRARY 

AND ARCHIVES 201 BRAZDS, ROOM 100, AUSTIN, TEXAS. PHONE: 463-5480. 

512/463-2100 P.O. Box 12548 AUSTIN. TEXAS 787 11.2548
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ITEC
ATTRACTIONS, INC. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         419,166
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  107,482
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    165,444
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               968,160
<PP&E>                                       7,385,740
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,644,928
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,730,543
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          813,829
<BONDS>                                      3,378,998
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,938
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,157,163
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,730,543
<SALES>                                      4,309,466
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,318,527
<CGS>                                        2,906,561
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,374,441
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             237,922
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (293,836)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (293,836)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (296,836)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification Pursuant to**

**18 U.S.C. §1350,**

**As Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of InfoTech USA, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three and six months ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, J. Robert Patterson, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer, Secretary and Director of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | /s/ J. Robert Patterson                                                                         |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | J. Robert Patterson, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer, Secretary and Director |
|   |                                                                                            |
|   | May 15, 2007                                                                                    |
|   | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| March 14, 2011 |   |   /s/ Donald R. Ramon |
|---------------------|--------|----------------------------|
|                |   | Donald R. Ramon            |
|                |   | Chief Financial Officer    |
From: scoover@q.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:46:08 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Steve Coover

Fort Collins, CO 80526
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

MICHAEL DENNIS MATHEWS,

Petitioner,

v.

DOUG WADDINGTON,

Respondent.

Case No. C05-5670RBL

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Hon. J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge, objections to the Report and Recommendation, if any, and the

remaining record, does hereby find and Order:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) The petition is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for the reasons set forth in the

Report and Recommendation.

(3) The clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Petitioner, Counsel for

Respondent and to the Hon. J. Kelley Arnold.

DATED this 20th day of June, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05670-RBL Document 21 Filed 06/20/06 Page 1 of 1
Before the Second Division,

August 9, 1967

No. P67/265.

#### The Rembar Co., Inc. *v.*United States, protests 60/13023, etc. (New York).

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of trays (boats) similar in all material respects to those the subject of *The Rembar Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(57 Cust. Ct. 239, C.D. 2774), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: lrandkbs@bellsouth.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:20:26 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Loyd Shelton

Tullahoma, TN 37388