alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Innospec
Inc. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Patrick S. Williams, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/S/    PATRICK S.
WILLIAMS           
|Patrick S. Williams                  
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|                                     
|February 18, 2011                    



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of this Report or as a separate disclosure document.



A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. §1350
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.
The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge 1

for the District of Nebraska, adopting the report and

recommendations of the Honorable David L. Piester, United States

Magistrate Judge for the District of Nebraska.

___________

No. 95-3212

___________

Gloria Pettersen, *

 *

Appellant, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * District of Nebraska.

Harold W. Clarke, Director, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: April 4, 1996

 Filed: April 18, 1996

___________

Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gloria Pettersen, a Nebraska inmate, filed a habeas petition citing

28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the caption and 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the body of the

petition.

The district court concluded that because Pettersen complained of

1

conditions of confinement and due process violations in connection with

placement in segregation, Pettersen's claims were not cognizable in a

habeas petition. Accordingly, the district court dismissed the petition

without prejudice to the subsequent filing of an action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Pettersen appeals.
-2-

Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we

agree that Pettersen's petition was properly dismissed without prejudice,

as it did not challenge Pettersen's conviction or sentence. See Inmate

115235, C.A. Kruger v. Erickson, 77 F.3d 1071, 1073 (8th Cir. 1996). 

Accordingly we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Order entered October 30, 2017

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-17-01047-CV EDDY'S MOTORS, LLC, Appellant

V. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC. D/B /A CHRYSLER CAPITAL, Appellee On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-14698



### ORDER On October 24, 2017, we ordered this appeal submitted without t he reporter’s record as appellant had failed to comply w ith our directive that it provi de written verification of payment of the reporter’s fee. By lett er filed October 25, 2017, court reporter Thu Bui informs us the fee has been paid, and she requests until November 4, 2017 to file the record. We GRANT the request, VACATE our October 24 th order, and ORDER the reporter’s record be filed no later than November 4, 2017.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
No. 42043.

#### Protests 572482-G, etc., of Henry Kayser & Fils, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists-of spoons, trays, boolcends, jardinieres, fire screens, flower stands, pots, watering cans, fruit holders, and inkwells chiefly used on the table, in the kitchen or household for utilitarian purposes. The claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was-sustained. *United States*v. *Friedlaender*(21 C. C. P. A. 103, T. D. 46445) and *Dow*v. *United States*(id. 282, T. D. 46816) cited.
---

Exhibit 99.3

Summary of Loan Agreement Entered into by and between Shenzhen BAK 
Battery Co., Ltd. (the Company) and Shenzhen Branch, China CITIC Bank Co., Ltd

(the Creditor) dated February 3, 2010

Main contents

- Contract number: (2010) Shenyinsun daizi 006;
- Loan principal: RMB 50 million;
- Loan term: from February 4, 2010 to May 4, 2010;
- Floating interest rate: 4.86%, rate adjustment in line with
benchmark interest rate adjustment of The Peoples Bank of China;

> Penalty interest rate for delayed repayment: 4.86% plus 50%
> *4.86%;
>       Penalty interest rate for embezzlement of loan proceeds:
> 4.86% *1;
>       Interest accrued and settled per month, interest settlement
> day is 20thof each month;

- Purpose of the loan is to provide working capital for the
Company;
- In the event of occurrence of any of the following during the
term of loan, the Creditor is entitled to demand repayment of loan principal
before maturity and withdraw directly from any accounts of the Company for the
repayment:

> Delay in repayment of interest for the loan;
> The Company suffers operation loss or sharp decline in operation;
> Being involved in or threatened to be involved in lawsuit, arbitration or other legal disputes;
> Providing untrue financial statements or information;
> Embezzling loan (i.e. using loan proceeds for purposes other than what is agreed in the contract without the consent of the Creditor);
> Refusing the examination or supervision of the Creditor on the Companys operational and financial conditions, and refuse to provide relevant financial statements and information;
> Great changes in management;
> Occurrence of other instances which endanger the safety of the loan provided by the Creditor;

- Breach of contract penalties: correct the breach of contract in time limit; suspension of loan unprovided; terminate the loan agreement, demand prepayment of loan principal and interest before maturity; imposition of punitive interest incurred due
to delayed loan; imposition of punitive interest for embezzlement of loan; imposition of plural interest for unpaid interest; withdraw from any accounts of the Company the loan principal and interest; indemnification for the Creditors expenses
incurred due to demanding the loan principal and interest in case of litigation, etc.

---

- The Company guaranteed not to use the loan borrowed from the Creditor to invest in purchasing securities or real estates. Otherwise, the Company shall be liable for any loss incurred to the Creditor.

Headlines of the articles omitted:

- Loan arrangement
- Interest clearing of the loan
- Payment of the loan
- Interest penalty of loan
- Guarantee of the loan agreement
- Renew of obligation
- Announcement and guarantee of the Company
- Rights and obligation of the Company
- Rights and obligations of the Creditor
- Disputation settlement
- Validity
- Supplemental

---
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
The Board of Directors
Unigraphics Solutions Inc.
 
   We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement on
Form S-8 (No. 333-57485) of Unigraphics Solutions Inc. of our report dated
February 9, 1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Unigraphics
Solutions Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998, and 1997, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity/net
investment, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period
ended December 31, 1998, and the related schedule, which report appears in the
December 31, 1998, Annual Report on Form 10-K of Unigraphics Solutions Inc.
 
                                          /s/ KPMG LLP
 
St. Louis, Missouri
March 29, 1999
Regulatory Evaluation 

·Iat~- (c -o4 J.~ VJ Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD 

.{[you make changes to the values in the table below. you must ensure the totals update accordingly. lf 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell. 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeiJer, appliance) 

replacement) Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost 

Do not include on- (include cost (labor+ u.s. for U.S. Fleet 

condition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Inspection 4.0 ,. : • { 0 ~ ( l •: .' lu.OO 124 • .,. IH).IJ() 

.;. 0_!)(, .: {I {!{J (J";n 

'· 11.01 .. { • ~lj () ll(l 

I <; 0 0{ ' OJJO 11 no 

t. O.f;t, 0.00 ' ( '10 

I ' O.i.~O ~ 0.00 {)(H) ' 

.;; {I L<' \ '!.00 !'{It ) 

" 0 C',} \ 1.(1(1 ('.00 

• (;,i;f• CdJG Ill':· ' 'I {)f '~ On I' (){j 

<;. r 111 J,!l(i r (lll 

. . r, (•.{ 'fl ' no 

i II •I ( 1 r ~·o 

' I t' ' (' I' fit 

)1 ( ' l.C I i- ll 

ll. I 11 [)~i 1 (II 

' fJ I •.fJ(' r; 

ll.fJ! I .fill •' '1!1 

.:; 001

1 ' I) 110 !, lit, 

<;. 0 Oil ll (I( I II( 

The known number of products in compliance: 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $42,160 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $ 

On-Condition Costs: 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

testing, and close- replacement) up) 

Replacement 16.0 s 1.:.: .~n PO $500 ~ Xr 1)1) 

s [I.{Jf .} II OJI 

s I) Ill ~ (11 

S (i IH :. I (.II) 

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): A fitting cost of 

$500 is assumed for the analysis. 
Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"? Q 

YES*0 NO~ 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD signjficant? G 

YES*O NO~ 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a signillcant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer. G 

YESD NO~ 

Explanation: This AD only affects 124 total US registered gliders. 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? 0 

YES*0 NO~ 

*Explanation:
Exhibit 10.18

                                                                         Summary
                                                                         -------




Summary of Loan  Agreement by and between  Shenzhen  BAK Battery  Co.,  Ltd. and
Longgang Branch, Shenzhen Development Bank dated May 18, 2005.

Main contents
>>   Contract number: Shenfa Longgang Dai Zi NO.20050518002;
>>   Loan principal: RMB47.5million;
>>   Loan term: May 18, 2005 - May 18, 2006
>>   Interest rate: fixed at 5.58%;
     |X|  Penalty interest rate for delayed repayment: 5.588% plus 50% *5.58%;
     |X|  Penalty interest rate for embezzlement of loan proceeds: 5.58% * 2;
>>   Purpose of the loan is to provide working capital for the Company;
>>   Advanced  repayment  of loan needs to be approved by  Development  Bank and
     Development  Bank is entitled to charge one month's  interest  based on the
     prepaid loan principal as penalty;
>>   If any of the following  occurs,  Development Bank is entitled to terminate
     Loan Agreement 5 before its term and withdraw all loans provided and cancel
     all loans not yet provided under Loan Agreement 5:
     |X|  The Company terminates operation or is stopped from operation;
     |X|  The Company  provides  untrue  documents or hide  important  financial
          information about its operation;
     |X|  The Company  intentionally  evades bank debts by way of related  party
          transaction or other means;
     |X|  The Company uses loan proceeds for purposes  other than what is agreed
          without the consent of the Lender;
     |X|  Occurrence  of other  instances  which  endangers  or may endanger the
          safety of the loan provided by  Development  Bank under Loan Agreement
          5;
>>   Breach  of  contract  penalties:  suspension  of  loan  unprovided,  demand
     prepayment of loan principal and interest  before  maturity;  imposition of
     punitive  interest;  compensation for Development  Bank's expenses incurred
     due to the Company's  breach of contract such as lawyer's fee,  travel cost
     in case of litigation, etc.
>>   Special  term:  If the Company  belongs to the group  client  category,  it
     should report to the Lender in writing  within 10 days from the  occurrence
     of any related party  transaction  involving more than 10% of the Company's
     net asset.

Terms that have been omitted:  loan arrangement;  interest clearing of the loan;
payment of the loan;  interest  penalty of loan;  rights and  obligation  of the
borrower;  rights and obligations of the lender;  expenses and service  charges;
settlement  account;   modification  and  termination  of  the  loan  agreement;
miscellaneous;  undertakings and  representations of the lender;  applicable law
and dispute settlement; validity; and attention.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 29, 2016

p0321 

# Order

Clerk March 29, 2016

151449

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 151449

COA: 325648

Wayne CC: 11

- 005601

- FC

TYRONE WALTER BOSWELL

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 9, 2015 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 16

- 00312

- CR
Ex Parte Mark Anthony Moncada Estrada

On a ppeal from the 139th District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. CR

- 712

- 08

- C

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal
DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. July 21, 2016
(Reap. Dec. 8436)

Entry No. 20320.

#### Leading Forwarders, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided May 10, 1955)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED subject to the approval of the Court that at the time of the exportation of the merchandise herein, such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, iu the usual wholesale quantities, and in the ordinary course of trade, for domestic consumption at 350 French Francs plus 1.195% plus the cost of packing, as stated on the invoices per “cm”.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher export value for such or similar merchandise at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this case may be submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value was 350 French francs plus 1.195 per centum plus the cost of packing, as stated on the invoice, per “cm.”

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### F. W. Woolworth Co. *v.*United States

No. 6066.

Invoice dated Sonneberg, Germany, September 21, 1939.

Certified September 23, 1939.

Entered at Baltimore, Md., October 20, 1939.

Entry No. 1352/1

(Decided November 8, 1944)

*Sharretts & Iíülis (Edward P. Sharretts*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Kincheloe, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated, by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court, that the facts and circumstances relating to the item of 10 per centum commission in the case listed in the annexed schedule, identified on the invoice with “xx” in green ink and the initials CHR of Examiner Charles H. Ritz, are in all material respects the same as the facts and circumstances relating to the item of 10 per centum commission specified in the invoices relating to glass tree ornaments, novelties, and figures covered by reappraisements 113038-A, 113040-A, and 113468-A of the F. W. Woolworth Co. and passed upon by the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals in *United States*v. *S. S. Kresge Co., B. Shackman & Co., Rice & Co. Corp., Strauss-Eckardt Co., Inc., F. W. Woolworth Co.,*26 C. C. P. A. 349, 352, wherein the court held that “A purchasing commission, charged for the handling of merchandise, is not a proper part of dutiable value.”

> It is further stipulated and agreed, that on the date of exportation of the merchandise involved in the case listed in the annexed schedule, identified on the invoices with “xx” in green ink and the initials CHR of Examiner Charles H. Ritz, articles such and similar thereto were freely offered for sale and sold to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States at the *per se*unit invoice prices, plus 3H per centum social assessments for insurance, vacation, and holiday costs, plus packing, as invoiced, and that there was no higher foreign value.

> As to all other items, the appeal is abandoned.

> It is further stipulated and agreed, that the record in *United States*v. *S. S. Kresge Co. et al.,*26 C. C. P. A. 349, 352, be incorporated herein and that the said appeal to reappraisement is submitted on this stipulation.

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 represented on the invoice by the items marked “xx” in green ink and the initials CHR of Examiner Charles H. Ritz, and that such values are the *per se*unit invoice prices, plus *3%*per centum social assessments for insurance, vacation, and holiday costs, plus packing, as invoiced.

*399The appeal having been abandoned insofar as it relates to all other-merchandise, to that extent the appeal is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 40404.

#### Protests 946566-G, etc., of Chong Sing & Co. et al. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Rapken*v. *United States*(25 C. C. P. A. 268, T. D. 49393) the wine .in question was held dutiable at 40 cents per pound and 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 24 as claimed.
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 375 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Whereas the year 2009 represents the 400th Anniversary of 

Galileo’s astronomical use of the telescope; 

Whereas the year 2009 has been designated the International 

Year of Astronomy (IYA) by the United Nations and 

UNESCO; 

Whereas astronomical observations and discoveries have profound implications for the development of 
2 

•HCON 375 EH 

science, philosophy, culture, and our general conception 

of our place in the Universe; 

Whereas astronomy is one of the oldest basic sciences and 

contributes fundamentally to the ultimate context of all 

other sciences; 

Whereas astronomy and astronomical discoveries continue to 

capture the imagination of the American people; 

Whereas the United States is the home of the most advanced 

astronomical research in the world; 

Whereas the many creative programs and activities planned 

in the United States for IYA 2009 are strongly supported 

by the staff, missions, and observatories of the National 

Science Foundation and the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration; 

Whereas science and technology awareness and education 

play a critical role in the economic success of the United 

States; and 

Whereas the astronomical sciences inspire students to study 

science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That the Congress— 

3 (1) honors the goal of the International Year of 

4 Astronomy to celebrate astronomical discoveries; 

5 (2) encourages the public to participate in IYA 

6 celebrations and activities and discover more about 

7 the Universe and the science of astronomy; and 
3 

•HCON 375 EH 

1 (3) applauds the efforts of the employees, cen2 ters, and laboratories of the National Aeronautics 

3 and Space Administration and the National Science 

4 Foundation in promoting public understanding of 

5 the astronomical sciences during the celebration of 

6 the International Year of Astronomy. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 9, 2008. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 375 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

To honor the goal of the International Year of 

Astronomy, and for other purposes.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

KEITH DARRIN MORRISON,

Petitioner

v.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY COURT OF

COMMON PLEAS,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 143 MM 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 22nd day of January, 2020

, the Application for Leave to File

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or

Extraordinary Relief is DENIED.