alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.48


 





Early Repayment Agreement


 


Party A: Xi’an TCH Energy Technology
Co., Ltd.


Legal Representative: Guohua Ku


Address: 12F, Tower A, Chang An Guo Ji,
No. 88, Nan Guan Zheng Jie, Xi’an City, Shaanxi Province


 


Party B: Cinda Financial Leasing Co., Ltd.


Legal Representative: Jinye Zhu


Address: 26F, Lanzhou Fortune Center, No.
638, Dong Gang Xi Lu, Chengguan District, Lanzhou City, Gansu Province


 


The Parties entered a Financial Leasing
Agreement with respect to Zhonggang waste heat power generation assets in June 2011. Party A continues making payment in accordance
with the lease agreement. However, considering such waste heat power generation project might be acquired or restructured during
the term of the lease agreement, after negotiation, both parties agreed to enter into the following agreement with respect to Zhonggang
waste heat power generation project.


 


1. Solutions


Because the change of circumstance of Zhonggang
waste heat power generation project, Party B agrees Party A to repay full payment early and to assist Party A on follow-up issues
of Zhonggang waste heat power generation project.


 


2. Repayment Method and Schedule


Upon signing of the agreement and till
December 28, 2014, Party A shall pay Party B the principal and interests due for the fourth quarter of 2014, which is RMB 2,561,067.22;
Party A shall pay Party B the principal and interests due for the first quarter of 2015, RMB 2,554,927.98 as well as the remaining
total principal RMB 12,139,270.74 on March 28, 2015.


 


Within three days after Party A repays
all principal and interests in full, Party B shall return the security deposit, RMB 2,125,000.00, to Party A’s account.


 


3. Termination of the Original Agreement


Upon execution of this agreement by both
parties, the Financial Leasing Agreement shall be terminated. The ownership of Zhonggang waste heat power generation project and
assets shall be transferred to Party A.


 


4. Breach of Agreement


If Party A does not make the repayment
as scheduled in accordance with this agreement, this agreement shall be terminated upon expiration of payment day and Party B shall
still own Zhonggang waste heat power generation project and assets and both parties shall continue to fulfill their respective
responsibilities and obligations in accordance with the Financial Leasing Agreement and bear responsibilities for breach of the
agreement.


 






    	 



    	 



    

 


5. Resolution of Disputes


Both parties shall negotiate a resolution
and settlement if there is any dispute between the parties. If no settlement can be reached through negotiation, any party can
file a lawsuit to the People’s Court where Party A is located.


 


6. The agreement takes effect once it is
signed and sealed by both parties.


 


7. The agreement is executed in quadruplicate
and each party holds two original copies that each has the same legal effect.


 


8. Any matters not mentioned in this agreement
shall be negotiated by both parties.


 


	Party A:	Party B:
	Authorized Representative:	Authorized Representative:
	Date: December 22, 2014 	Date: December 22, 2014
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: February 1, 2010
    
    /s/ Heath B. ClarkeHeath B. ClarkeChief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer) and Chairman/s/ Brenda AgiusBrenda AgiusChief Financial Officer
(principal financial and accounting officer) and Secretary
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael Strauss, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Registrant, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 10, 2007



/s/ Michael StraussMichael StraussChairman, Chief Executive Officer and President
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-40740

Conference Calendar

__________________

MARLEX LEJON JOHNSON,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNIDENTIFIED BROWN, Doctor, Gregg County

Jail; UNIDENTIFIED SHIRLEY, Nurse/LVN, Gregg

County Jail; UNIDENTIFIED BECKY, LVN, Gregg

County Jail,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6-96-CV-97

- - - - - - - - - -

February 20, 1997

Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Marlex Lejon Johnson, a Texas prisoner (# 683867), appeals

the magistrate judge’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil

rights complaint as frivolous, following an evidentiary hearing

pursuant to Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985). 

The magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion either in

refusing to allow Johnson to amend his complaint after the

hearing or in allowing an attorney for the defendants to crossexamine him during the hearing. See Adams v. Hansen, 906 F.2d 
No. 96-40740

-2-

192, 194 (5th Cir. 1990); Wilson v. Barrientos, 926 F.2d 480, 483

(5th Cir. 1991). Otherwise, the magistrate judge correctly ruled

that Johnson failed to state a cognizable claim that the

defendants were “deliberately indifferent” to his medical needs.

See Johnson v. Brown, et al., No. 6:96-CV-97 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 19,

1996). 

This appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. 

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). 

Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir.

R. 42.2. We caution Johnson that any additional frivolous

appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition

of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Johnson is further cautioned

to review all pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise

arguments that are frivolous.

DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
No. 54705.

#### Olavarria & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 112450-K, etc. (Tampa).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of sugar sirups similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Olavarria & Co., Inc.*(37 C. C. P. A. 40, C. A. D. 417), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Terence Yap, the Chief Financial Officer of
CHINA SECURITY & SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY, INC. (the Company), DOES HEREBY
CERTIFY that:

| | 1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
      September 30, 2010 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
| | 2. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.                                                             

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this
statement this 26th day of October 2010.

/s/ Terence
YapTerence Yap Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial
Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to China Security & Surveillance Technology, Inc. and
will be retained by China Security & Surveillance Technology, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.

---
Exhibit 32.2

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2001.

                   ------------------------------------------

In connection with the Annual Report of PARK HILL CAPITAL I CORPORATION (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended May 31, 2001, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Francis
Mailhot , Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2001, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: October 28, 2005


                                        /s/ Francis Mailhot
                                        -------------------
                                        Francis Mailhot
                                        Principal Accounting Officer
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

The Water Cycle - USGS Water Science School

LinksGlossaryHelp

      - Home
      - Water Basics
      - Water Properties
      - Water Cycle (Adults)
      - Water Cycle (Kids)
      - Surface Water
      - Groundwater
      - Water Quality
      - Water Use
      - Activities
      - Photos
      - Q&A
      - Teachers
      - Contact

 Back to previous page

Retour:Le Cycle de l'Eau.

# Le Cycle de l'Eau pour les Enfants

L'organisation de la Surveillance Géologique des Etats-Unis (USGS) et l'Organisation de l'Alimentation et de l'Agriculture des Nations Unies (FAO) se sont associées pour élaborer un diagramme du cycle de l'eau pour les enfants des écoles primaires et des collèges.

 Téléchargements pour impression:  PDF (838mm x 610mm - 2 Mb) | JPG (432mm x 279mm - 0.4 Mb) | JPG (poster - 2.5 Mb)

Pour visionner les fichiers pdf, utilisez Adobe Reader (gratuit) ou un logiciel similaire.

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior |			U.S. Geological Survey                        	URL: http://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycle-kids-french.html	Page Contact Information: Howard Perlman	Page Last Modified: Friday, 02-Dec-2016 12:52:43 EST
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7209
JAMES EDWARD MILLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MIKE PIERCE; DAVID PENDRY; BUTCH HOLLAND; TIM CHEEK; RONNIE PRICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (5:99-cv-00050) Submitted: May 30, 2007 Decided: June 15, 2007 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Edward Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Mason Thomas, PATRICK, HARPER & DIXON, Hickory, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: James Edward Miller appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint upon remand from this court. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Miller v. Pierce , No. 5:99-cv-00050 (W.D.N.C. June 28, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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 Annual Report of Platina Energy Group Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned
certifies, 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.




Date:
      June 14, 2008
                By:
                /s/ 
      Blair J. MerriamName:
      Blair J. MerriamTitle:
      Chief Executive Officer
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 06-1129 

________________________________________________________________________ 

CORRUPTION 

 United Nations Convention Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and OTHER GOVERNMENTS 

Signed at Merida December 9, 2003 
 

NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 

 MULTILATERAL 

 Corruption 

United Nations Convention signed at Merida December 9, 2003; 

Transmitted by the President of the United States of America 

 to the Senate October 27, 2005 (Treaty Doc. 109-6, 

 109th Congress, 1st Session); 

Reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 

 August 1, 2006 (Senate Executive Report No. 109-18, 

 109th Congress, 2d Session); 

Advice and consent to ratification by the Senate 

 September 15, 2006; 

Ratified by the President October 12, 2006; 

Instrument of Ratification deposited October 30, 2006; 

Entered into force November 29, 2006. 


























































NOTE: Only the English text will be printed in this publication.
#### Rose Urena et al., Appellants, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[633 NYS2d 391]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages based on false arrest, assault, negligent hiring, and malicious prosecution, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated May 19, 1994, as granted the branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was to dismiss the fourth cause of action based on negligent hiring.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Eight notices of claim were filed by four separate plaintiffs stating that their claims arose as the result of their having been the victims of the wrongful conduct of a traffic enforcement agent and various police officers. Four notices of claim refer to the period from January 2, 1992, to May 20, 1992, as being the time when the malicious prosecution claims arose. The four notices of claim which relate to the plaintiffs’ remaining causes of action refer to January 2, 1992, and afterward, as being the time when those additional claims arose.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the presence of the single word "negligence” in the latter four notices of claim does not constitute a statement of "the time when, the place where [or] the manner in which” the plaintiffs’ claim based on negligent hiring arose (General Municipal Law § 50-e [2]). The plaintiffs’ claim based on negligent hiring presumably is premised on negligent acts or omissions which preceded January 2, 1992, the date of the plaintiffs’ arrest *(cf, DeLeonibus v Scognamillo,*183 AD2d 697). The notices of claim contain absolutely no factual "allegations concerning negligent hiring” *(Bryant v City of New York,*188 AD2d 445, 446). Under these circumstances, the court properly dismissed the cause of action based on negligent hiring. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
## R e q u e s t f

o r I n f o r m a t i o n

­ F A

A

­ 2 0 1 5

­ 1 4 6 7

9

­ A W A

­ A V S

­ 3 3 3 E x e m p t i o n s ( F A

A )

S e n t : T u e s d a y

, J u l y 2 1

, 2 0 1 5 1 2 : 0 4 P M

T o : R o n n i e @ 4 f o r k s m e d i a

. c o m

D e a r M r

. K r u p a :

T h i s l e t t e r i s t o i n f o r m y o u t h a t t h e f

o l l o w i n g i n f

o r m a t i o n i s m i s s i n g f r o m y

o u r p e t i t i o n ( D o c k

e t N o

. F A A

­ 2 0 1 5

­ 1 4 6 7 )

. T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i s n e c e s s a r y f

o r t h e F e d e r a l A v i a t i o n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ( F A A ) t o p r o c e s s y o u r p e t i t i o n

.

 P r o v i d e a c o p y o f t h e M o t i o n P i c t u r e a n d T e l e v i s i o n O p e r a t i o n s M a n u a l ( M P T O M ) w h i c h i s r e q u i r e d

b y O r d e r 8 9 0 0

. 1

, V o l u m e 3

, C h a p t e r 8

, S e c t i o n 1

. I f y o u w i s h f o r u s t o p r o c e e d w i t h o u t t h i s m a n u a l

a n d r e m o v e c l o s e d

‐ s e t f i l m i n g f r o m y

o u r p r o p o s e d o p e r a t i o n p l e a s e i n f o r m o f u s o f y

o u r i n t e n t i o n b y

t h e r e q u e s t e d r e s p o n s e d a t e l i s t e d b e l o w

.

P l e a s e s u b m i t t h e a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n ( n o n

‐ p r o p r i e t a r y ) t o y o u r d o c k e t a t w w w

. r e g u l a t i o n s

. g o v a n d s u b m i t a n y

p r o p r i e t a r y i n f

o r m a t i o n t o t h e F A A H e a d q u a r t e r s o r e l e c t r o n i c a l l y v i a e m a i l t o 3 3 3 e x e m p t i o n s @ f a a

. g o v

. I f y

o u w a n t

u s t o p r o c e s s y

o u r r e q u e s t a n y f u r t h e r

, w e m u s t r e c e i v e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n d e s c r i b e d a b o v

e b y 8 / 4 / 2 0 1 5

. I f w e d o n o t

r e c e i v e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n

, w e w i l l c l o s e t h e d o c k e t w i t h o u t n o t i f

y i n g y o u f u r t h e r

.

I f y o u h a v e a n y q u e s t i o n s

, p l e a s e f

e e l f r e e t o c o n t a c t m e a t ( 2 0 2 ) 2 6 7

­ 4 2 6 4

.

D a n N g o

F A A O f f i c e o f R u l e m a k i n g
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v THEODORE H. POTTER, Airman Second Class, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

14 USCMA 118, 33 CMR 330

No. 16,877

June 28, 1963

*Colonel Daniel E. Henderson, Jr.,*and *Major Charles K. Rush*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Emanuel Lewis*and *Major Robert M. Haynes*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

This case is before the Court on a petition for grant of review. The issue in question relates to the denial by the president of a special court-martial of a defense request for a continuance of three working days so that the accused could be represented by civilian counsel.

The record reflects that charges were originally served on the accused on November 6, 1962. An additional charge was served on November 21st and trial commenced on November 30th. The request for continuance would have extended the date of trial to December 5th.

The right of an accused to counsel of his choice has been adequately established by Article 38(b), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 838. In addition, the Supreme Court in Powell v Alabama, 287 US 45, 77 L ed 158, 53 S Ct 55, 84 ALR 527 (1932), added that “the right to counsel being conceded, a defendant should be afforded a fair opportunity to secure counsel of his own choice.” See also Glasser v United States, 315 US 60, 86 L ed 680, 62 S Ct 457 (1942); United States v Evans, 1 USCMA 541, 4 CMR 133; United States v Tellier, 13 USCMA 323, 32 CMR 323.

The Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1951, gives in detail the rule governing the granting of continuances. Paragraph 58a provides for a continuance “fop reasonable cause,”

*119The granting or denial of a motion made at trial for a continuance of court-martial proceedings lies within the sound discretion of the presiding officer. United States v Plummer, 1 USCMA 373, 3 CMR 107. Only when he abuses that discretion will we reverse for refusal of a reasonable delay. United States v Vanderpool, 4 USCMA 561, 16 CMR 135. The erroneous denial of accused’s motion must, of course, prejudice his substantial rights. United States v Nichols, 2 USCMA 27, 6 CMR 27.

We are certain from our review of the facts disclosed in this record that appointed defense counsel demonstrated a sufficient basis for his motion and that there was an abuse of discretion by the presiding officer. United States v Daniels, 11 USCMA 52, 28 CMR 276. Clearly the accused was forced to proceed without benefit of civilian counsel of his choice.

In view of the nature of the error it infected all that followed thereafter, including the pleas of the accused.

The petition for review is granted. The decision of the board of review is reversed. The record is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force. A rehearing may be ordered.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. WALTER R. MORSE, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

*Messrs. Gliclcman & Valentine*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Joseph P. Lordi*and *Mr. James R. Zazzali*for the respondent.

March 12, 1968.

Granted.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 (the Report) of TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT CAPITAL CORP. (the Registrant), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, PATRICK F. CONROY, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



|                                              
|----------------------------------------------
|                                              
|/s/ PATRICK F. CONROY                         
|Name: Patrick F. Conroy Date: November 8, 2006