alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
4.32


 


Property
Lease Agreement


 


Lessor
(Party A): Colori Inc.


 


Lessee
(Party B): Shanghai Juhao Information Technology Co., Ltd


 


On
the basis of voluntariness and equality, Party A and Party B have reached the following agreement on property leasing through consultation:


 


		1.	Location,
area, structure, decoration and facilities of the property: Located in Longliqi Industrial Park, Changshu, Jiangsu Province, covering
an area of 6640 square meters. The address is: No. 46-5 Xinzhuang Avenue, Xinzhuang County, Changshu City, Jiangsu Province.



 


		2.	Lease
                                            purpose: For Party B's storage of products and materials.



 


		3.	Lease
                                            term: From January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2022



 


		4.	Rent
                                            and payment method: The rent is RMB 1,803,200 per year.



 


		5.	Property
                                            maintenance responsibility: Party B shall not change the warehouse structure during storage.



 


		6.	Agreement
                                            on sublease: During the lease term, if Party A transfers the ownership of the leased property
                                            to a third party, it is not necessary to seek the consent of the lessee, but it shall inform
                                            the lessee of the transfer of ownership. If Party B transfers the lease to a third party
                                            due to work needs, it must obtain the consent of the lessor in advance.



 


		7.	Modification
                                            and termination of contract:



 


If
one party fails to perform the contract for more than 10 days, the non-breaching party has the right to terminate the contract unilaterally.


 


		8.	Rights
and obligations of Party A and Party B:



 


		8.1	Rights
and obligations of Party A:



 


Party
A shall ensure the completion of the property’s infrastructure and shall not sublet the property without the permission of Party
B.


 


		8.2	Rights
and obligations of Party B:



 


		i.	Party
B shall pay the rent on time and have the obligation to maintain and repair the property during the lease period.



 


		ii.	During
                                            the lease period of the property, all expenses incurred by Party B due to its production
                                            and operation shall be borne by Party B itself.



 


		9.	This
Agreement shall come into force from the date of execution. In case of any dispute, both parties shall settle it through negotiation.
If the negotiation fails, the dispute shall be submitted to Changshu people's court for judgment.



 


		10.	This
agreement is made in duplicate, one for each party.



 


	Party
    A:	Party
    B:
	Legal
    Person:	Legal
    Person:
	 	 
	Signing
    date: January 1, 2022
Case No. 0,246.

#### MASON v. MASON.

[4 Cranch, C. C. 401.]1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1833.

Notes — Indorser—Suit against Prior In-dorser.

An indorser, who has been obliged to take up a note indorsed by two previous indorsers, for the accommodation of the maker, may recover the whole amount from either of the two accommodation indorsers.

[See Case No. 9,245.]

[Action by Thompson F. Mason against Richard B. Mason.]

The plaintiff indorsed a note, (as town in-dorser,) already indorsed by two others, for the accommodation of the maker; and at maturity was obliged to take it up.

THE COURT

held, that the plaintiff may recover of the first indorser the whole amount paid to take up the note.
# C_2016191EN.01003202.xml

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/32

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 29 February 2016 — Chemtura Netherlands v EFSA

(Case T-725/15 R)

((Application for interim measures - Procedure for placing plant protection products on the market - Publication of documents relating to the inclusion of an active substance - Rejection of the request for confidential treatment of certain information - Application for interim measures - Lack of urgency))

(2016/C 191/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Chemtura Netherlands BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented by: D. Detken and S. Gabbi, Agents, assisted by R. van der Hout and C. Wagner, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for the suspension of operation of the EFSA Decision of 10 December 2015 concerning the publication of certain parts of the EFSA Conclusion on the Peer Review on the review of the approval of the active substance diflubenzuron regarding the metabolite 4-chloroaniline (PCA) in respect of which the applicant requested partial confidential treatment.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim relief is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim relief is dismissed.

| 2. | The order of 15 December 2015 delivered in Case T-725/15 R is cancelled. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The order of 15 December 2015 delivered in Case T-725/15 R is cancelled.

| 3. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The costs are reserved.

---
Before the Third Division,

June 8, 1949

(Note: The following petition was tried before and determined by a special Third Division consisting of Cline, Oliver, and Cole, Judges.)

No. 53237.

#### The Glemby Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

petition 6682-R (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

From an examination of the record the court found that, at the time of entry, neither the petitioner nor its broker had knowledge of a higher price for the merchandise than that at which it was entered. When, after entry, and before final appraisement, the broker learned of an advance in price for the goods, he waited for permission from the examiner to amend the entry in *336accordance with the value determined by the examiner, as had been the practice in the past. Inasmuch as the examiner was ill at the time, appraisement was made before the entrant could amend. It was held that there was no intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THERMO
VOLTEK CORPORATION REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JULY 4, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                     JUL-04-1998
<CASH>                                14,723
<SECURITIES>                           1,005
<RECEIVABLES>                         11,267
<ALLOWANCES>                             793
<INVENTORY>                           12,637
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      40,957
<PP&E>                                10,816
<DEPRECIATION>                         7,390
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        62,625
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 12,717
<BONDS>                                5,250
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                                 497
<OTHER-SE>                            34,161
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          62,625
<SALES>                               22,165
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      22,165
<CGS>                                 12,120
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         12,120
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       1,465
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         115
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       586
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        1,672
<INCOME-TAX>                             669
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    1,003
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                           1,003
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0.10
        

</TABLE>
(Reap. Dec. 9406)

#### American Roland Corporation *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 935076; 963594.

(Decided April 22, 1959)

*Eugene R. Piclcrell*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto that the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in Schedule “A”, attached hereto and made a part hereof, consists of Pas Acid, a coal-tar product, which was appraised on the basis of American selling price, as defined under the provisions of Section 402(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and subject to duty thereunder by reason of Paragraph 28(c) of said Act;

> *616IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the American selling price on the dates of exportation for said Pas Acid, as defined under the provisions of Section 402(g) of said Act is $3.40 per pound, net weight, less 1% packed;

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals for re-appraisement are abandoned as to any other merchandise listed on the invoices, and that these appeals may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find American selling price, as that value is defined in section 402(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for determination of the value of the merchandise here in question, and that such value is $3.40 per pound, net weight, less 1 per centum packed.

Insofar as these appeals relate to other merchandise, they are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 46338.

#### Protests 747749-G, etc., of Hochschild Kohn & Co. et al. (Baltimore, etc.).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           3,531
<SECURITIES>                                    16,272
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,836
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,681
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,465
<PP&E>                                           1,984
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,181
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30,129
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,150
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,190
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,789
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,129
<SALES>                                          5,338
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,892
<CGS>                                            2,354
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,192
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    967
<INCOME-TAX>                                         4
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                963
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       963
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
        

</TABLE>
# C_2016016EN.01001602.xml

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 7 October 2015 — Policie ČR v Salah Al Chodor and Others

(Case C-528/15)

(2016/C 016/20)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Policie České republiky, Krajské ředitelství policie Ústeckého kraje, odbor cizinecké policie

Appellant:

Other parties: Salah Al Chodor, Ajlin Al Chodor, Ajvar Al Chodor

Other parties:

Question referred

Question referred

Does the sole fact that a law has not defined objective criteria for assessment of a significant risk that a foreign national may abscond (Article 2(n) of Regulation No 604/2013 (1)) render detention under Article 28(2) of that regulation inapplicable?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31.

1

---
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-51004

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROBERT ALVARADO

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:07-CR-3288-ALL

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Alvarado appeals the 210-month sentence imposed following his

guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to manufacture five grams or more of

methamphetamine. Alvarado argues that the district court clearly erred in

making an upward adjustment for obstruction of justice. He contends that the

Government failed to provide evidence to corroborate a confidential source’s (CS)

statement that Alvarado threatened her when he discovered that she was

carrying electronic monitoring equipment during a drug purchase.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 25, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-51004

2

For an obstruction-of-justice enhancement, the district court’s factual

findings are reviewed only for clear error. United States v. Holmes, 406 F.3d

337, 363 (5th Cir. 2005). “A factual finding is not clearly erroneous as long as it

is plausible in light of the record as a whole.” Id.

Under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, a defendant’s offense level should be increased by

two levels if the defendant threatens, intimidates, or otherwise unlawfully

influences a co-defendant directly or indirectly. § 3C1.1, comment. (n.4(a)).

Although the Government was required to provide reliable evidence of

intimidation, it was not required to provide independent corroborating evidence

that the CS was threatened by Alvarado because the CS was a recognized

coconspirator of Alvarado’s and not an unidentified informant. See § 6A1.3, p.s.,

comment; United States v. Rogers, 1 F.3d. 341, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1993). It could

also be inferred that Alvarado’s seizure of the bag after discovering it held

electronic monitoring equipment constituted an act of intimidation, especially

in light of Alvarado’s well known reputation for violent behavior.

The district court’s decision to apply the adjustment for obstruction of

justice was plausible in light of the record as a whole, and thus, did not

constitute clear error. See Holmes, 406 F.3d at 363.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                         266,335
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,122,627
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  4,723,016
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       3,986,414
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,410,793)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,687,599
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,795,412
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       816,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,076,187
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,687,599
<SALES>                                     15,563,977
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,659,248
<CGS>                                       13,009,036
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,009,036
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,194,086
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                456,126
<INCOME-TAX>                                   179,131
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            276,995
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   276,995
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### F. Schumacher & Co. et al. *v.*United States

No. 6770.

Entry No. 724694, etc.

Invoices dated Walsden, England, October 10, 1941, etc.

Certified October 11, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., November 14, 1941, etc.

(Decided January 17, 1947)

*Brooks & Brooks*for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Kincheloe, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### Thyele M. Lamb, Trading as Lamb & Company, *v.*J. Louis Kates, Appellant.

*Brokers*— Beal *estate commissions*— Evidence—Sufficiency—Case *for jury.*

In an action by a real estate broker to recover commissions earned in the sale of real estate, it appeared that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant to sell his property. It also appeared that the plaintiff having seen an advertisement of one desiring to purchase a property similar to that of the defendant, called the attention of the advertiser to such property. Subsequently a sale having been made the plaintiff claimed his commission.

*439At the trial the court submitted to the jury the question of whether or not the sale was the direct result of plaintiff’s efforts.

*Held,*that the disputed issue was properly submitted and a verdict for the plaintiff should be sustained.

Argued October 30, 1924.

Appeal, No. 180, Oct. T., 1924, by defendant, from judgment of Municipal Court of Philadelphia, No. 566, March T., 1922, on verdict for plaintiff, in the case of Thyele M. Lamb, trading as Lamb and Company, v. J. Louis Kates.

Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.

Affirmed.

Assumpsit to recover commissions on the sale of real estate, Before Knowles, J.

From the record it appeared that defendant had submitted his property to several real estate agents for sale at a definite price, with the stipulation that the one who sold it should receive the commissions. Among those agents, to whom the property was submitted, was the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, having noticed an advertisement asking for a property similar to that of the defendant, answered the advertisement, calling attention to the defendant’s property. Sometime afterwards he received a call from the agent of the person, who subsequently purchased the property. The plaintiff supplied him with data concerning its property but the actual sale was made directly with the purchaser or his agent. Plaintiff thereupon claimed his .commissions, which were refused by the defendant.

Verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $480.25 and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed.

*Errors assigned*were various rulings on evidence, charge of the court and answers to points.

*Alexander*M. *DeHaven*for appellant.

*440February 27, 1925:

*David L. Ullman,*and with him *Sundheim, Folz & Kun,*for appellee.

Per Curiam,

Every disputed question in this case was fairly referred to the jury, and it was instructed several times that before the plaintiff could recover, he must convince the jury from his evidence that it was through his efforts that the sale was made; in other words, that he was the direct, immediate and efficient cause of the sale. The motion for judgment non obstante veredicto was urged upon a single allegation of error, — that under all the evidence in the case, the verdict should be for the defendant.

We find no reversible error in the record and affirm the judgment as entered on the verdict.
#### American Shipping Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6436.

Entry No. 720252, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, September 8, 1941, etc.

Certified September 9, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., October 17, 1941, etc.

(Decided October 10, 1946)

*Strauss & Hedges (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Cole, Judge

(Abstract): These appeals for reappraisement of various^items of merchandise concern the so-called British purchase tax, described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48.” The said tax was held not to be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (c)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

An agreed set of facts shows export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (d)), to be the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise, and that such statutory values for the articles in question are the appraised values, less additions made by the importers on entry to meet advances by the appraiser in similar cases.