alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.20

                                                                         Summary
                                                                         -------


Summary of Guaranty  Contract of Pledge by and between Shenzhen BAK Battery Co.,
Ltd. and Longgang Branch, Shenzhen Development Bank dated May 15, 2005

Main contents
>>   Contract number: Shenfa Longgang zhi zi NO.20050518002;
>>   As  guarantor,  the Company has  pledged a one-year  term  deposit of RMB50
     million to Development Bank as collateral to secure its indebtedness  under
     Loan  Agreement  5 which  include  the loan  principal,  interest,  penalty
     interest,  expenses for Development Bank to realize its creditor's  rights,
     and loan principal secured is RMB 47.5 million.
>>   After the Company has pledged the term deposit as collateral, it should not
     transfer  or permit any third party to use such  deposit  without the prior
     written consent of Development Bank.
>>   Guaranty Contract is irrevocable and independently effective.

Terms  that  have  been  omitted:   disposal  of  the  collateral  by  creditor;
undertakings  and  representations  of pledger;  independence  of the  contract;
expenses  and  service  charges;  amendment  and  termination  of the  contract;
applicable law and dispute  settlement;  effectiveness  and  registration of the
collateral; validity; and statement of collateral status.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         271,028
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  159,614
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     15,936
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               479,182
<PP&E>                                      14,570,413
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,773,495
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,486,006
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,924,595
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       791,782
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,032,290
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,486,006
<SALES>                                        104,306
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               969,880
<CGS>                                           60,183
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  891,471
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             202,359
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             78,409
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   115,963
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
        

</TABLE>
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico Reports. Please see 1 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please 2 also note that this electronic memorandum opinion ma y contain computer-generated errors or other 3 deviations from the official paper version file d by the Court of Appeals and does not include the 4 filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 7 Plaintiff-Appellee, 8

v. NO. 31,406 9 CIPRIANO BOTELLO, 10 Defendant-Appellant. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY 12 Lisa C. Schultz, District Judge 13 Gary K. King, Attorney General 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellee 16 Cipriano Botello 17 Hobbs, NM 18 Pro Se Appellant 19 MEMORANDUM OPINION 20 FRY, Judge. 21 Defendant Cipriano Botello appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for 22 reconsideration of sentence. This Court filed a notice of proposed summary 232 disposition on September 21, 2011, proposing to dismiss the appeal because 1 Defendant’s notice of appeal was filed one day late. Defendant filed a memorandum 2 in opposition on October 3, 2011, which we have given due consideration. 3 Unpersuaded, we dismi ss Defendant’s appeal. 4 Rule 12-201(A)(2) NMRA requires that a no tice of appeal shall be filed “within 5 thirty (30) days after the judgment or order appealed from is filed in the district court 6 clerk’s office.” The New Mexico Supreme Court has held that timely filing a notice 7 of appeal is a mandatory precondition to th is Court’s exercise of jurisdiction. Trujillo 8
v. Serrano , 117 N.M. 273, 277-78, 871 P.2d 369, 373-74 (1994). 9 Our review of the record shows thatthe order denying Defendant’s motion to 10 reconsider sentence was filed on May 10, 2011. [RP 361] Defe ndant, acting pro se, 11 filed his notice of appeal thirty-one days later on Friday, J une 10, 2011. [RP 363] 12 Accordingly, the mandatory precondition has not been met, nor has Defendant pointed 13 out any unusual circumstances, such as late filing caused by an error of the court, that 14 might provide a sufficient reason to overlook the lateness. Id. 15 For the reasons stated above, we dismiss this appeal. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 173 1 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 2 WE CONCUR: 3

4 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 5

6 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 7
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 22 

Expressing the sense of Congress that the President should provide notice 

of withdrawal of the United States from the North American Free 

Trade Agreement (NAFTA). 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 10, 2007 

Mr. GOODE (for himself and Mr. JONES of North Carolina) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 

Ways and Means 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress that the President should 

provide notice of withdrawal of the United States from 

the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). 

Whereas, according to the Department of Commerce, United 

States trade deficits with Canada and Mexico have significantly widened since the implementation of the North 

American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); 

Whereas, according to the Department of Labor, 1,800,000 

workers have applied for trade adjustment assistance as 

a result of jobs lost because of NAFTA; 

Whereas future unrestricted foreign trucking into the United 

States can pose a safety hazard due to inadequate maintenance and inspection, and can act collaterally as a conVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:19 Jan 11, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HC22.IH HC22

ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HCON 22 IH 

duit for the entry into the United States of illegal drugs 

and terrorist activities; and 

Whereas the economic and physical security of the United 

States is impaired by the potential loss of control of its 

borders attendant to the full operation of NAFTA: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that the 

3 President should provide written notice of withdrawal of 

4 the United States from the North American Free Trade 

5 Agreement (NAFTA) in accordance with Article 2205 of 

6 the Agreement. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-41183 Conference Calendar

TROY HAMILTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JAMES SLAUGHTER, PA, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:00-CV-888

-------------------- February 19, 2003 Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Troy Hamilton, Texas prisoner #450170, appeals from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Hamilton contends on appeal that a physician’s assistant (PA) was deliberately indifferent to his broken wrist because the PA relied on an x-ray technician’s advice that the wrist was sprained instead of examining the x-ray himself.No. 02-41183 -2- Hamilton does not explain how a PA’s reliance on an x-ray technician’s reading of an x-ray poses a substantial risk of serious harm or that the PA disregarded such a risk. See Farmer
v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994). The district court did not err by dismissing Hamilton’s complaint.
AFFIRMED.
No. 55516.

#### William Faehndrich, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 164657-K/13086 (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jeffrey Ronald BANKER, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-30588.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 16, 2005.

Jeffrey A. Kent, Esq., Eugene, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Bryan E. Lessley, Esq., Office of the Federal Public Defender, Eugene, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: REINHARDT, RYMER, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jeffrey Ronald Banker appeals the 140-month sentence imposed following his *861guilty plea conviction for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Because Banker was sentenced under the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines, and we cannot reliably determine from the record whether the sentence imposed would have been materially different had the district court known that the Guidelines were advisory, we remand to the sentencing court to answer that question, and to proceed pursuant to *United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073, 1084 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). *See United States v. Moreno-Hernandez,*419 F.3d 906, 915 (9th Cir.2005).

REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 26428]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8857]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Committee Management Renewal

    The NSF management officials having responsibility Advisory 
Committee for International Science and Engineering (<greek-i>25104) 
have determined that renewing this group for another two years is 
necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance 
of duties imposed upon the Director, National Science Foundation by 42 
U.S.C. 1861 et seq. This determination follows consultation with the 
Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration.
    Effective date for renewal is May 23, 2007. For more information 
contact Susanne Bolton at (703) 292-7488.

    Dated: May 4, 2007.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
 [FR Doc. E7-8857 Filed 5-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
# Matrice tOO-Calibrating the Compass
F'lvm 

### DJI 

### Wiki IMPORTANT: 

### Be !1IR! 

### to c:alilmlte the c:ompiiSS 

### fur everyMW flight 

### lollll1ilm.. 1"he c:ompu1

### ia a very 

### scmitive illltrummt 

### 1hat requha regular eal.ibJa1ilm 

### to euurc opdmal 

### ffight

### JICifi• miiii(A 

### Almormal compw datadue 

### to a 

### ladt of

### c;alilnmon am

### lead topoorflight 

### per.limDina: or evcu 

### fisilun:. Waraillg:
• Do 

### NOT calibrate 

### yo111' 

### compass '\like

### thae is om"""C ofstrcmg 

### magaetic inter&mlce.lllldl 

### u magnetite quarrioe, parking atnlotmes,**and~** 

### stedrcinfoo:enWl'"'·
• Do 

### NOT carry**fm~c:** 

### objeclll mdlubyawith

### y011 

### dllriDg c:alibmtion.


### • Do NOT calilmlto bnrid• 

### mu&ive mlltd 

### objec:tB.
• Do NOT calibrate in 111 

### indoor**~p~~~:e.** 

### Calilntion

### P.roc:edum Choole 

### an open 

### apace to cany 

### out the following 

### procedmes. 

### 1. 

### Ensure the 

### compass 

### ia c:alibratecl. If 

### you ctid 

### not c:alibrate the 

### eompus 

### as port 

### of your

## p:re-flisht**~OilS,** 

### or if 

### you haw 

### mtmel to a 

### -location sinco tho 

### last cah'bration, tap

### tho Syatem Statas 

### bar in

### tho app 

### and. select 

### Cah'b.rale, thm 

### fOllow the OD-sc:re&l!l 

### iDstrw:timm to 

### calibrate the 

### ain:rafl: slep-by-stllp. 

### 2. Holdthe ain:rafthorizo!dall.y, and rotate it 

### 360 

## desr- along the 

### ceutral.am. Tho.Ain:Jd Statu& Indicatorwill emit 

### a solid green light.

' '

# <f**·~ ~fiiJ¥~i**  ..... t1011/2015 Matrice 100-CalibratirQ the Canpass- DJI Wiki 4. Recalibrate the compass ifthe Aircraft Status Indicator becomes solid red. Note: Ifthe Aircraft Status Indicator flashes red and yellow alternatively after compass calibration, move your aircraft to a different location to carry out the calibration. Tips: Calibrate the compass after you launch the DJI Pilot app ifyou are prompted to do so. When to Recalibrate 1. The compass data is abnormal, and the Aircraft Status Indicator is flashing red and yellow alternatively. 2. Flying in a new location, or a location that is different from your last flight. 3. The mechanical structure ofthe M100 is changed, i.e. the mounting position ofthe GPS module is changed. 4. Severe drifting occurs in flight, i.e. the M100 has difficulty flying in a straight line. Retrieved from "http:/ /wiki.dji.com/en/index.php?title=Matrice _1 00-Calibrating_ the_ Compass&oldid=23276"

• This page was last modified on 21 July 2015, at 05:15. • This page has been accessed 261 times.

http://wi ki .dji .oom/en/i nclex.phptMatrice_100-Cal ibralin!Lihe_Canpass 2/2
#### Geo. Borgfeldt Corp. et al. *v.*United States

No. 6488.

Entry No. 715543/1, etc.

Invoices dated Hanley, England, October 1942, etc.

Certified October 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., December 30, 1942, etc.

(Decided November 6, 1946)

*Fred Bennett*for the plaintiffs.

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

Keefe, 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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Anthony GRANDISON, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-6555.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 17, 2005.

Decided: Sept. 14, 2005.

Anthony Grandison, Appellant pro se. Roann Nichols, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Grandison, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).* An appeal may not *544be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Grandison has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*

*

 To the extent that the motion was properly brought pursuant to former Fed.RXrim.P. 35(a), a review of the record and the district court's orders denying the motion and Gran*544dison's motion for reconsideration discloses that the appeal is without merit, and we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See United States v. Grandison,*No. CR-83-200 (D. Md. Feb. 4, 2005, and Mar. 14, 2005).
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Deangelo Ernest BATES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-2170.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

July 29, 2005.

Elaine Y. Ramirez, Office of The United States Attorney, Albuquerque, NM, Norman Cairns, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Albuquerque, NM, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Raymond P. Moore, Fed. Public Defender, Jill M. Wichlens, Asst. F.P. Defender, Office of The Federal Public Defender, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KELLY, O’BRIEN, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.*

*

 After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT**

PAUL J. KELLY, JR., Circuit Judge.

Defendant-Appellant Deangelo Ernest Bates appeals his sentence imposed for possession of more than 50 grams of cocaine base with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Mr. Bates’ counsel filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and moved for leave to withdraw. The brief was served upon Mr. Bates and he was given proper notice under 10th Cir. R. 46.4(B). Mr. Bates has not responded.

Mr. Bates pleaded guilty and was sentenced to the mandatory minimum term of 10 years imprisonment. *See*21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). As part of his plea agreement, Mr. Bates waived his right to appeal any sentence within the applicable sentencing guideline range. Mr. Bates’ counsel has not identified any meritorious bases of appeal. We are likewise at pains to identify any non-frivolous claim. Mr. Bates was sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment. Owing to his criminal history, he was not eligible for a “safety-valve” reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1). Nor did Mr. Bates qualify for a substantial assistance reduction under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. The sentence clearly fell within the applicable guideline range, and there is nothing in the record that would lead us to conclude that Mr. Bates’ waiver of appellate rights should not be given full effect.

Accordingly, we DISMISS this appeal as frivolous and GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw.

**

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
DSpace Repository

# Analysis of Forensic Anthropology Cases Submitted to the Smithsonian Institution by the Federal Bureau of Investigation from 1962 to 1994

Login

      -  DSpace Home 
      - →
      -  Smithsonian Contributions Series 
      - →
      -  Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 
      - →
      - View Item

# Analysis of Forensic Anthropology Cases Submitted to the Smithsonian Institution by the Federal Bureau of Investigation from 1962 to 1994

Grisbaum, Gretchen A.Ubelaker, Douglas H.

DOI:					https://doi.org/10.5479/si.00810223.45.1

Date:					2001

### Abstract:					

### Citation:					

*Analysis of Forensic Anthropology Cases Submitted to the Smithsonian Institution by the Federal Bureau of Investigation from 1962 to 1994**Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology*https://doi.org/10.5479/si.00810223.45.1

Show full item record

## Files in this item

Name:SCtA-0045-Hi_res.pdf

Size:7.477Mb

Format:PDF

View/Open

Name:SCtA-0045-Lo_res.pdf

Size:921.5Kb

Format:PDF

View/Open

Name:SCtA-0045.epub

Size:2.206Mb

Format:Unknown

Description:ePub

View/Open

Name:SCtA-0045.mobi

Size:3.113Mb

Format:Unknown

Description:mobi

View/Open

## This item appears in the following Collection(s)

            -  Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology  [60]  

# Search DSpace

# Browse

              -  All of DSpace                  -  Communities & Collections 
                -  By Issue Date 
                -  Authors 
                -  Titles 
                -  Subjects 
              -  This Collection                  -  By Issue Date 
                -  Authors 
                -  Titles 
                -  Subjects 

# My Account

              -  Login 

Terms of UsePrivacyContact UsSend Feedback

DSpace softwareDuraSpace

Theme by
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Trends in Building Permit Activity

              																	Shesser, Adela L. 						*Trends in Building Permit Activity : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1243*,												Washington, D.C: 								G.P.O., 										1959,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4534,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER