alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                            SUMMARY OF FUNDTECH LTD.
                                  ISRAEL LEASE

The following is an English translation of the material terms of the lease
agreement:


LESSOR:           Crystal Rental Property Ltd.

LESSEE:           Fundtech Ltd.

DATE SIGNED:      January 17, 1999

TERMS:            May 15, 1999 - May 14, 2002, with two (1) year options


RENTAL AMOUNT:    -   NIS 69,340 (US $16,978) per month;

                  -   $100.00 per parking space, increased to $125.00 after six
                      months;

                  -   3 months rent abate; and

                  -   Linked to the U.S. dollar and the CPI

LOCATION:  Square meters located on the 4th floor of 12 CHILAZONE STREET, RAMAT-
           GAN, ISRAEL, plus (20) parking spaces.

UTILITIES, TAXES
& EXPENSES:         Lessee is responsible to pay its proportional share based 
                    on (its proportional percentage of square meters in the
                    building) of Management and Operating expenses. Including
                    management fees, financing expenses, utilities, tax,
                    management and operational fees.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 Principal Executive Officer
Certification Pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) I, John H. Marmaduke, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal
Executive Officer) of Hastings Entertainment, Inc., certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Hastings
Entertainment, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
and have:  (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in
the registrants internal control over financial reporting. Date: April 16, 2004
    
    /s/ John H. Marmaduke

John H. MarmadukePresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
---

Exhibit 99.6

Summary of Guaranty Contract of Maximum Amount ( the Contract) Entered

into by and between BAK International Limited and Shenzhen Longgang Branch, 
Bank of China (the Creditor) on March
8th, 2010

Main contents:

- Guaranty Contract number: 2010 Zhenzhongyin Gang EBaozi000119-2;
- Bak International Limited undertakes to assume joint and several liabilities
for Shenzhen BAK Battery Co., Ltd (the Obligor)s indebtedness towards Bank of China under the Comprehensive Credit Facility Agreement of Maximum Amount (reference no.: 2010 Zhenzhongyin Gang Exiezi 000119) from March 4, 2010 to
March 4, 2011, and the maximum amount secured is RMB 450 million.
- Guaranty Responsibility: The guaranty under this Contract shall be
guaranty with joint and several liabilities. The guarantor is obligated to pay
off the debt in the event the obligor is unable to pay off the debt (including
the creditor declares the debt becomes mature in advance to its original expiry
date due to default of the obligor or the guarantor).
- Scope of Guaranty:The guaranty shall cover all of the loan principal,
interest, penalty interest, breach of contract compensation, damages,
undertaking fee and all the expenses such as litigation cost, lawyers fee,
notification cost and public notice cost etc. which is incurred to the Creditor
in realizing its creditors right.
- Guaranty period: The guaranty period is from the effective date of this
Contract to two years after the expiry of the term of the Credit Facility
Agreement and relevant agreement entered into under the Credit Facility
Agreement.

Headlines of the articles omitted:

- Payment on demand
- Declaration and guaranty
- Remedies for breach of contract
- Right reserved
- Modification, amendment and termination of the Contract
- Disputation settlement
- Fee
- Attachment
- Supplement articles
- Validity

---
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 269 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 12, 2007 

Received 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to 

correct the enrollment of the bill H.R. 1585. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That, in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 1585, 

3 the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make the 

4 following corrections: 

5 (1) In the table in section 2201(a)— 

6 (A) strike ‘‘Alaska’’ in the State column 

7 and insert ‘‘Alabama’’; and 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

HCON 269 RDS 

1 (B) in the item relating to Naval Station, 

2 Bremerton, Washington, strike ‘‘$119,760,000’’ 

3 in the amount column and insert 

4 ‘‘$190,960,000’’. 

5 (2) In section 2204(b)— 

6 (A) in paragraph (2), strike ‘‘Hawaii’’ and 

7 insert ‘‘Hawaii)’’; 

8 (B) in paragraph (3), strike ‘‘Guam’’ and 

9 insert ‘‘Guam)’’; and 

10 (C) add at the end the following new para11 graph: 

12 ‘‘(4) $71,200,000 (the balance of the amount 

13 authorized under section 2201(a) for a nuclear air14 craft carrier maintenance pier at Naval Station 

15 Bremerton, Washington).’’. 

16 (3) In section 2703— 

17 (A) insert ‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION OF AP18 PROPRIATIONS.—’’ before ‘‘Funds’’; 

19 (B) in paragraph (4), strike 

20 ‘‘$2,107,148,000’’ and insert 

21 ‘‘$2,241,062,000’’; and 

22 (C) add at the end the following new sub23 section: 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

HCON 269 RDS 

1 ‘‘(b) GENERAL REDUCTION.—The amount otherwise 

2 authorized to be appropriated by subsection (a) is reduced 

3 by $133,914,000.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 12, 

2007. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
March 7, 1969

No. 69-5

#### United States v Gregory W. Pierre, LCPL, U. S. Marine Corps.

On consideration of the Motion for Appropriate Relief filed by Appellate Defense Counsel and the Order of the Court dated March 4, 1969 directing the Government to show cause why the relief sought should not be granted, it appearing that the Board of Review has rendered an opinion in which it reduced the period of confinement at hard labor to six (6) months, and it further appearing that such sentence to confinement has been served, and Appellate Government Counsel having assured the Court in writing that the accused has been released from confinement thereby rendering the question before this Court moot (United States v Gale, 17 .USCMA 40, 37 CMR 304), it is, by the Court, this 7th day of March, 1969,

ORDERED:

That said Motion for Appropriate Relief be, and the same is, hereby denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                               3
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      938
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (53)
<INVENTORY>                                        187
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,333
<PP&E>                                             299
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (265)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,369
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,111
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              853
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,612)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,369
<SALES>                                          2,235
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,235
<CGS>                                            1,980
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,980
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   592
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    16
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  11
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (364)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (364)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (364)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>
No. 50713.

#### Protests 18924-K, etc., of S. S. Kresge Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Stephen Rug Mills*v. *United States*(32 C. C. P. A. 110, C. A. D. 293), and by the court’s decision on remand in Abstract 50056. In accordance therewith the protests were sustained as-claimed.
EXHIBIT 21.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

Foreign Subsidiaries:

| | SonoSite, Ltd., a United Kingdom subsidiary               
| | ----------------------------------------------------------
| | SonoSite France SARL, a French subsidiary                 
| | SonoSite GmbH, a German subsidiary                        
| | SonoSite Iberica, S.L., a Spanish subsidiary              
| | SonoSite (Asia) Limited, a Chinese subsidiary             
| | SonoSite Japan KK, a Japanese subsidiary                  
| | SonoSite Australasia Pty Limited, an Australian subsidiary
| | SonoSite Canada, Inc., a Canadian subsidiary              
| | SonoSite China Medical Ltd., a Chinese subsidiary         

77

---
Cáse No. 8,071.

#### LANMON et al. v. CLARK.

[4 McLean, 18.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Michigan.

June Term, 1845.

Creditor’s Bill — Powers of Chancery — New Remedy by State — Fraudulent Conveyances.

1. The general chancery powers of a court of the United States, are derived under the laws of the United States, and not under the laws of a state.

2. But where a new remedy is authorized by a state, which may be appropriate to the exercise of a chancery jurisdiction, this court will give relief in the mode provided.

3. On this ground, a creditor’s bill will he sustained to reach all the rights and credits which a judgment debtor may have, although they can not he reached by execution.

[Cited in Wilkinson v. Tale, Case No. 17,678; Shainwald v. Lewis, 6 Fed. 774.]

. 4. Fraudulent conveyances, for this purpose will be set aside.

In equity.

Mr. Fraser, for complainant.

Vandyke & Harrington, for defendant.

1

 [Reported by Hon. John McLean, Circuit Justice.]

OPINION OF THE COURT.

This is a creditor’s bill, which states that a judgment was obtained in the circuit court of the United States in this district, by the complainant, against the defendant; and an execution being issued on the judgment, was returned by the marshal, no property, real or personal, to be found. And the complainant alleges that the defendant has equitable interests, things in action, and other property, which can not be reached by execution; and that he has also debts due to him from persons unknown, etc. They therefore ask a discovery, etc., and relief. The defendant demurs to so much of the bill as seeks discovery and relief, touching the equitable interests and rights of the defendant, and to any other part of the bill which prays that the judgment may be satisfied out of them. The creditor’s bill is authorized by a statute of this state. No state court can increase or diminish the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States, sitting in chancery. They derive their jurisdiction in this respect under the acts of congress, and it is exercised in the same manner in the states, whether the courts of those states have courts of chancery or not. But where a new mode of procedure is authorized by a state, which is appropriate to chancery powers, relief will be given, in the mode provided, by the courts of the United States.; On this principle, this court will sustain a bill, under the creditor’s act of this state, which shall reach every description of interest that the defendant may have, and which can not be effected by an execution. This jurisdiction is appropriate to chancery, and may be exercised where there is no special statute. Similar relief is given in England. 1 Vern. 398; 1 P. Wms. 445; 2 Dickens, 575; Amb. 79, 455; 20 Johns. 563; 2 Johns. Ch. 283, 296; 4 Johns. Ch. 671. But these statutes in behalf of creditors adopt regulations which facilitate the progress of a cause, and the attainment of equitable relief. It is, therefore, judicious for the courts of the United States to avail themselves of these provisions, which conduce to the attainment of justice. The demurrer is overruled, and the defendant is required to answer.
Exhibit 10.21

                                                                         Summary
                                                                         -------


Summary of  Comprehensive  Credit  Facility  Agreement of Maximum Amount between
Shenzhen BAK Battery Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen  Branch,  China  Minsheng Bank dated
March 17, 2005.

Main contents
>>   Contract number: 2005 Shen Binhai Zong'e Zi NO.006;
>>   Maximum amount for credit facilities to be provided: RMB 40 million;
>>   Purpose: Working capital;
>>   Term: from March 17, 2005 to March 17, 2006;
>>   Minsheng  Bank is  entitled  to adjust  or cancel  the  credit  and  demand
     immediate  payment  of  the  loan  if  the  Company's  business  operations
     deteriorates severely, the Company loses its business reputation,  there is
     a  dispute  between  the  Company  and  Minsheng  Bank or  there is a major
     adjustment of the state monetary policy.

Terms that have been  omitted:  types of the line of credit;  use of the line of
credit; guarantee of the line of credit; commitment of the borrower;  commitment
of the lender; effectiveness; and dispute settlement.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.59



                               SIXTH AMENDMENT TO
                 DYNEGY INC. PROFIT SHARING/401(K) SAVINGS PLAN


         WHEREAS, Dynegy Inc. (the "Company") and other Employers have
heretofore adopted the Dynegy Inc. Profit Sharing/401(k) Savings Plan (the
"Plan") for the benefit of their eligible employees; and

         WHEREAS, the Company amended and restated the Plan on behalf of itself
and the other Employers, effective as of January 1, 1998; and

         WHEREAS, the Company desires to further amend the Plan on behalf of
itself and the other Employers;

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as follows, effective as of
December ____, 1999:

         1.       Section 1.1(56) of the Plan shall be amended by adding the
following new sentence to the end of such Section:

         "Solely for purposes of the preceding sentence and Sections 3.3,
         4.2(c), and 4.2(d), a Facility Employee (as hereinafter defined) shall
         be considered employed by the Employer on the last day of the Plan Year
         beginning on January 1, 1999. A 'Facility Employee' means each
         individual who was employed by the Employer at the Employer's Texarkana
         facility, New Hope facility, East Texas facility, Myrtle Springs
         facility, Ginger facility, or Eustace facility (collectively, the
         'Facilities') immediately prior to the sale of the Facilities to
         Sulphur River Gathering L.P. or an affiliate thereof."

         2.       As amended hereby, the Plan is specifically ratified and
reaffirmed.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused these presents to be
executed this _____ day of December, 1999.

                                                    DYNEGY INC.


                                                       BY:
                                                          ----------------------
                                                          NAME:
                                                               -----------------
                                                          TITLE:
                                                               -----------------
#### Fred M. Reineman Co. et al. *v.*United States

No. 6458.

Entry No. 703785, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, June 24, 1944, etc.

Certified June 1944, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., August 12, 1944, etc.

(Decided October 24, 1946)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiffs.

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

Mollison, 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.
No. 65733.

#### Sears, Roebuck and Co. *v.*United States,

protest 61/2553-16214 (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
ABCI Holdings Inc.
 
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer
 
 I, Mark L. Baum, certify that:
 
 1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of ABCI Holdings Inc.;
 
 2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;
 
 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
 
 4.  The registrants certifying officers are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:
 
 
 a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
 
 b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and
 
 c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
 
 5. The registrants certifying officer has disclosed, based on his most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or person performing the equivalent function):
 
 a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
 
 b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and
 
 6.  The registrants other certifying officers have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
 
 Date: November 4, 2004/s/ Mark BuamMark L. BaumChairman, CEO