alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

Exhibit 10.71/A

       THE SUPPLEMENTARY ENTENTE ON THE "AGREEMENT ON EQUITY TRANSFERENCE"

                                                                 (No. myweb0012)

Dated: Feb. 23th, 2001

This Supplementary Entente (hereinafter referred to as "The Entente") is made by
and between MYWEBINC.COM (hereinafter referred to as "Party A") and Beijing BE&E
Group (hereinafter referred to as "Party B") on the 23th day of January 2001
with Beijing East Trade Investment Consultant Co. Ltd. as the CONSULTANT.

Party A, Party B and the COUSULTANT signed the "Agreement on Equity
Transference" (hereinafter referred to as "The Agreement") (No. myweb0012) on
the 25th day of December 2000. Execution of The Agreement is under way and the
first investment of RMB 300,000 has been made at the end of year 2000.

Party A, Party B and the CONSULTANT all agree to make modification on article
1.1 of The Agreement to stipulate a new time table of investment as follows:

Before Jan. 22th,2001    Installment of RMB 200,000
Before Feb. 15th,2001    Installment of RMB 500,000
Before Mar. 10th,2001    Installment of RMB 2,000,000

Party A shall provide Party B and the Consultant with the Legal Notification
stipulated in article 1.7 of The Agreement before Feb. 12, 2001.

The Entente is valid on the date shown below the title of The Entente when
lawful representatives of the three parties concerned sign it. And all other
articles in The Agreement remain unchanged.

Definitions in The Entente are the same as those in The Agreement. This Entente
has three original documents for its English version and Chinese version
separately. Each party signing The Entente possesses one Chinese version and one
English version.

PARTY A: MY WEB INC. COM                             PARTY B: BEIJING BE&E GROUP

REPRESENTATIVE: Stamped & signed            REPRESENTATIVE: Stamped & signed

THE CONSULTANT: BEIJING EAST TRADE CONSULTANT CO. LTD.

REPRESENTATIVE: Stamped & signed
#### Lee Peretzman et al., Appellants, v David Elias, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 164]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered on or about February 3, 1995, which granted defendant’s motion to change of venue of this action to Nassau County pursuant to CPLR 511 (b), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Pursuant to CPLR 503 (a), the place of trial shall be in the county in which one of the parties resided when the action commenced *(Berberich v York Scaffold Equip. Corp.,*177 AD2d 451). Here, there is no question that New York County is not a proper county since none of the parties resided therein at the time of the commencement of the action.

"While a defendant who seeks a change of venue based upon an improper designation by a plaintiff must normally comply with the procedure of CPLR 511 and the time limits set forth therein, '[n]oncompliance with the statutory time requirements should not act as a bar where * * * a plaintiff’s willful omissions and misleading statements regarding his residence are the cause of such noncompliance and the defendant moves promptly after ascertaining the true state of affairs.’ ” *(Roman v Brereton,*182 AD2d 556, 557, quoting *Philogene v Fuller Auto Leasing,*167 AD2d 178, 179.)

Plaintiffs failed to indicate their residence in the summons and complaint they filed in May 1993, but rather stated the basis of venue in New York County as plaintiff’s business address. Defendant served his answer on or about July 30, 1993, and immediately began attempting to ascertain and verify plaintiffs’ residence. Only six days later, on August 5, 1993, defendant made a demand for a change of venue to Nassau County pursuant to CPLR 511. Based on plaintiffs’ willful omission of their. residence, the belated service of defendant’s demand is excusable.

Thereafter, defendant did not receive written acknowledgement by plaintiffs of their residence until November 1993. In addition, claiming that they never received it, plaintiffs never *193responded to defendant’s demand. In light of plaintiffs’ initial willful omission and continued failures and delays, defendant moved within a reasonably prompt period and his meritorious motion for a change of venue was properly granted by the IAS Court acting within its sound discretion. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Asch and Tom, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 55 (Thursday, March 22, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13511-13512]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5246]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[CO-922-071310-FI; COC64225]


Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas 
Lease.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 
3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a 
petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease COC64225 from Tatonka 
Oil and Gas Company, LLC for lands in Moffat

[[Page 13512]]

County, Colorado. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by 
all the rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the law.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, Milada 
Krasilinec, Land Law Examiner, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication, 
at 303.239.3767.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lessee has agreed to the amended lease 
terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $20.00 per acre or fraction 
thereof, per year and 18\2/3\ percent, respectively. The lessee has 
paid the required $500 administrative fee and $163 to reimburse the 
Department for the cost of this Federal Register notice. The lessee has 
met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in 
Section 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 
U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to 
reinstate lease COC64225 effective December 1, 2006, under the original 
terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty 
rates cited above.

    Dated: March 15, 2007.
Milada Krasilinec,
Land Law Examiner.
[FR Doc. E7-5246 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P
10.4 WestbergRenewalAddendum




RENEWAL ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This Renewal Addendum No. 2 is made this 17th day of March, 2015, to the Employment Agreement between Michael Westberg (the “Employee”) and Home Federal Bank, a South Dakota state chartered bank (the “Bank”), dated March 27, 2013 (the “Employment Agreement”).  The Board of Directors of the Bank and of HF Financial Corp., the parent company of the Bank, have authorized the Chairman of the Bank’s Board of Directors to execute this Renewal Addendum No. 2 on behalf of the Bank.  


WHEREAS, the term of Employment Agreement, as extended by Renewal Addendum No. 1 to Employment Agreement dated March 13, 2014, expires on June 30, 2015, unless renewed by mutual agreement of Employee and the Bank; and


WHEREAS, the Employment Agreement may be renewed for not less than one year by providing notice thereof no later than ninety (90) days prior to the end of the then existing term; and


WHEREAS, Employee and the Bank do mutually agree to renew the term of the Employment Agreement.


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of paragraph 1 of the Employment Agreement, the parties agree as follows:  


1.    The term of the Employment Agreement is hereby renewed and the Employment Agreement shall continue in effect through June 30, 2016.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Employee and the Bank have executed this Renewal Addendum No. 2 effective as of the day and year first above written.




EMPLOYEE    HOME FEDERAL BANK 
    
/s/ Michael Westberg        /s/ Michael M. Vekich     
Michael Westberg        By: Michael M. Vekich 
        Its: Chairman of the Board
No. 51078.

#### Protests 56673-K, etc., of Alberti Importing *&*Exporting Co. et al. (Boston).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decisions cited, the following allowances were made to compensate for the weight of the inedible substance on the outside of the cheese: (1) 2)4 percent for the cheese marked *“A”*and “C” on the invoices similar in all material respects to the cheese the subject of *Mattia Locatelli*v. *United States*(T. D. 49302), Abstracts 41794 and 42146, *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706), *Mattia Locatelli*v. *United States*(T. D. 48284), and Abstract 50694; and (2) 1 percent *273for the cheese marked “B” on the invoices similar to that the subject of *Mattia Locatelli*v. *United States*(T. D. 49389) and *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706). The protests were sustained to this extent.
No. 54737.

#### Charles Hall, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 158480-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Francisco Vasquez, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 831]

—Appeal by the *576defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Pitaro, J.), rendered November 1, 1993, convicting him of sodomy in the second degree, sexual abuse in the second degree (seven counts), and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The victim’s complaints to her friend and her teacher were sufficiently prompt to allow them to testify as "prompt outcry” witnesses *(see generally, People v Kornowski,*178 AD2d 984). The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his claim that the court erred in receiving the accompanying details of the alleged acts and in failing to issue limiting instructions *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Holzer, 52*NY2d 947). We decline to review this issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

The defendant’s challenges to the prosecutor’s comments on summation are unpreserved for appellate review *(see, People v Dordal, 55*NY2d 954) or without merit *(see, People v Long,*205 AD2d 804; *People v Stephens,*161 AD2d 740). Balletta, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.
#### Maureen D. Corter et al., Plaintiffs, v Bernard Luck et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Orange County,

November 2, 1978

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*King, Edwards & O’Connor*for defendants. *Wexler, Berger-man & Crucet*for plaintiffs.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Irving A. Green, J.

An unopposed application is made by the defendant in a medical malpractice action, for an order compelling the plain*961tiffs to respond to the defendant’s demand, pursuant to CPLR 4010.

The demand consists of a notice in nature requiring the service by the plaintiffs of evidentiary particulars concerning collateral source payments that the plaintiffs may have received in replacement or indemnification of special damages or other economic loss claimed in the action. CPLR article 40 deals with the conduct of trials and not disclosure which is dealt with in CPLR article 31. A reading of CPLR 4010, which is a part of the medical malpractice package enacted by chapter 109 of the Laws of 1975, makes clear that it expresses a rule of evidence applicable during the conduct of the trial. Professor Siegel, in his commentary to CPLR 4010 (McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 4010, p 48), makes note that such section is "an evidentiary item and belongs in Article 45.”

The said statute neither by its express language nor reasonable implication creates an independent and separate procedural demand before trial for a pleading response in the nature of evidentiary particulars covering the matters of collateral source payments received by a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action. The said statute, however, does make evidence of collateral source payments received by a plaintiff in these actions, in replacement or indemnification of the special damages or other economic loss claimed, admissible upon trial for consideration by the trier of the facts. Such matters, therefore, by virtue of this statutory enactment, are brought within CPLR 3101 (subd [a]) which requires full disclosure, before trial, of all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defenses of an action.

The proper procedure, therefore, to obtain collateral source payments relevant to the medical malpractice action is via the prescribed disclosure methods set out in CPLR 3102. In a medical malpractice action wherein the complaint alleges special damages of the nature embraced within CPLR 4010, a demand for a bill of particulars thereof may be appropriate. Upon this application, however, the pleadings in the action have not been submitted and the court, therefore, is unable to determine the propriety of a bill of particulars vis-á-vis the defendant’s demand; and, therefore, the court does not reach such question.

Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Tessera Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Bruce M.
McWilliams, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to my knowledge:

(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 result of operations of the Company.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Bruce M. McWilliams              
|Bruce M. McWilliams                  
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|May 12, 2006                         

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Tessera Technologies, Inc, a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the period
ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Michael A. Forman, Acting Chief Financial Officer and Vice President, Finance of the Company, certify, pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to my knowledge:

(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 result of operations of the Company.



|                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Michael A. Forman                                     
|Michael A. Forman                                         
|Acting Chief Financial Officer and Vice President, Finance
|May 12, 2006
#### Joseph Rodbourn, *Appellant, v.*The Utica, Ithaca and Elmira Railway Company, *Respondent.*

Appeal from- order directing receiver to be discharged, etc. Order affirmed on opinion of court below and as result of decision on previous appeal,, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements.
No. 42946.

#### Protest 689908-G of Laurence Phillips Lumber Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Laurence Phillips Lumber Co.*v. *United States*(T. D. 49624) and *United States*v. *Myers*(24 C. C. P. A. 156, T. D. 48640), the protest was sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Ajay Bansal, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Tercica, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Tercica, Inc.

Date: May 4, 2007



By:

/s/ Ajay BansalAjay BansalChief Financial Officer


This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Tercica, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form
10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
Case No. 13,230.

#### In re SPENCER.

[See Case No. 13,234.]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-22-0000544

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

KAREN K. ABERSOLD, Claimant-Appellant-Appellant, v. A MARKETING RESOURCE, LLC, Employer-Appellee-Appellee, and STATE FARM INSURANCE, Insurance Carrier-Appellee-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS APPEALS BOARD (CASE NO. AB 2017-323(S); DCD NO. 2-13-04995)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL (By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Wadsworth and Nakasone, JJ.) Upon review of the record, it appears that:(1) On September 2, 2022, self-represented ClaimantAppellant-Appellant Karen K. Abersold (Appellant) filed a Notice of Appeal with the Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board (Board) without the fees required by Hawai i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 3(a);

(2) On October 6, 2022, the Chief Clerk of the Board notified Appellant that payment of appellate filing fees are required under HRAP Rule 11(b)(2), and that if Appellant did not pay the fees or obtain an order allowing Appellant to proceed in forma pauperis , the record on appeal would not be prepared;

(3) On October 20, 2022, the Board extended the deadline for Appellant to file a Motion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis to November 1, 2022;

(4) The appellate record does not indicate that Appellant filed here or with the Board a motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis ; Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-22-0000544 15-JUN-2023 08:21 AM Dkt. 20 ODSDNOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(5) On November 14, 2022, the appellate clerk entered a default of the record on appeal, informing Appellant that the time to docket the appeal had expired, Appellant had not paid the filing fee or obtained an order allowing Appellant to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis , the matter would be brought to the court's attention on November 25, 2022, for action that may include dismissal of the appeal, and Appellant could seek relief from default by motion;

(6) Appellant has not taken any further action in this appeal; and

(7) An appeal may be dismissed where the record on appeal has not been prepared because the appellant failed to pay the required fees or obtain an order allowing the appellant to proceed in forma pauperis . HRAP Rule 11(b)(2), (c)(2).

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, June 15, 2023.
/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza Chief Judge /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Associate Judge
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone Associate Judge

2
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Stalking and domestic violence[electronic resource]**
 
1998 | 2001
 
SuDoc Number:J 35.21:
Item Number:0719-A-03 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000552030
 
February 6, 2020
No. 44068.

#### Protest 5394-K of Henry Pollak, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

No evidence was offered in support of the claims made. The protest was therefore overruled.
No. 46811.

#### Petitions 6151-R, etc., of Frank P. Dow Co., Inc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

The petitions were dismissed.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consentto the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No. 333-145455, 333-115930, and 333-40806) on Form S-8 of Beasley Broadcast Group, Inc. of our report dated March 11, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statementsand schedule of Beasley Broadcast Group, Inc., which report appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Beasley Broadcast Group, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009. 

            /s/ Crowe Horwath LLP 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 

March 11, 2010
**EXHIBIT 7**
**CONSENT OF APPOINTED ACTUARY**
I consent to the use and incorporation by reference of the following report inthis Annual Form 40-F of Sun Life Financial Inc. (the “Company”):
My report dated February 12, 2004 on the valuation of the policy liabilities ofthe Company for its consolidated balance sheets at December 31, 2003 and2002 and their change in the consolidated statements of operations for the yearsthen ended.
DatedFebruary 17, 2004   /s/ “Robert Wilson”Robert W. Wilson  Vice-President and Appointed Actuary  Fellow, Canadian Institute of Actuaries  Toronto, Canada
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8519 

To prohibit the obligation or expenditure of Federal funds for disinformation 

research grants, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 23, 2024 

Mr. MASSIE (for himself, Mr. BIGGS, Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina, Ms. 

BOEBERT, Mr. BURLISON, Mr. DAVIDSON, Mr. FINSTAD, Ms. GREENE

of Georgia, Mr. GOSAR, Mrs. LUNA, Mr. OGLES, Mr. PERRY, Mr. ROY, 

and Mr. WEBER of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

A BILL 

To prohibit the obligation or expenditure of Federal funds 

for disinformation research grants, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION. 

4 No Federal funds may be obligated or expended by 

5 any Federal department or agency for the following: 

6 (1) Disinformation research grants. 

7 (2) Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace grants. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8519 IH

1 (3) Programs within the National Science 

2 Foundation’s Track F: Trust and Authenticity in 

3 Communications Systems. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS