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

Summary of Guaranty Contract of Maximum Amount ( the
Contract) Entered into by and between Shenzhen BAK Battery Co., Ltd,
(the Guarantor) and Tianjin Branch
Shanghai Pudong Development Bank (the
Creditor) on November 30, 2010

Main contents:

- Guaranty Contract number: ZB7703201088020401;
- Maximum amount of loan to be provided: RMB 30 million;
- Term: from November 30, 2010 to October 25, 2011;
- Shenzhen BAK Battery Co., Ltd undertakes to assume joint and several
  liabilities for BAK International (Tianjin) Limited (the Obligor)s
      indebtedness towards Shanghai Pudong Development Bank under this Contract
      from November 30, 2010 to October 25, 2011.
- 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 relevant agreements entered into under the Contract.

Headlines of the articles omitted:

- Termination and explanation
- Payment on demand
- Declaration and undertaking of the Guarantor
- Obligations of the Guarantor
- Amendment and termination of the Contract
- Disputation settlement
- Validity

---
No. 6198.

#### STATE EX REL. FERNAND VAUGHN GASQUET vs. MATTHEW J. LONG, CRIMINAL SHERIFF OF THE PARISH OF ORLEANS.

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus*

W. W. Wall, J. O. & Thos Gilmore, Henriques & Otero, for relator.

Per Curiam.

In June, 1912, the relator was committed to the State Insane Asylum by the Criminal District Court, under Section 995, R. S., on the ground that he was then in such mental condition as to constitute a menace to the safety of citizens and the peace of the State. This commitment was, however, never carried .out and he is still in the custody of the ''Criminal Sheriff of Orleans Parish.

He now applies to this Court for his release by Habeas Corpus on the ground that those conditions no longer exist, that he has recovered his sanity and that it would no.longer endanger the safety and peace of the community that he be restored to his liberty.

The only evidence adduced fully establishes his contention; there is no evidence whatever to the contrary.

*72Opinion and decree, July 7th, 1914.

Under Article 104, Constitution of 1913, this Court has the power to issue the writ of Habeas ’Corpus in such cases that is “at the instance of any person in actual custody” within this circuit.

Article 822, Paragraph 2 and Article 824, Code of Practice, authorize the release of the relator under the circumstances; that is to say, when the change in conditions render the confinement no longer necessary or legal.

It is therefore ordered that the writ of Habeas Corpus issued herein be made peremptory; and accordingly that the relator, Fernand Vaughn Gasquet be discharged and released from custody forthwith.
- 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 > The Status of Labor in Puerto Rico, Alaska, Hawaii

              																	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*The Status of Labor in Puerto Rico, Alaska, Hawaii : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1191*,												Washington: 								U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 										January 1956,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4486,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

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

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



EXHIBIT 99.5 FILED
SECRETARY OF STATESEP 15 2004STATE OF WASHINGTON
 ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
TO THE
CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION
OF THE RIGHTS AND PREFERENCES
OF
SERIES A CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK
OF
O2DIESEL CORPORATION O2Diesel Corporation, a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Washington (the Company), hereby submits
these Articles of Amendment pursuant to Section 23B.01.240 of the
Washington Business Corporation Act (the WBCA) for the purpose of
amending its Certificate of Designation of the Rights and Preferences
of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock (the Certificate) filed in
the Corporations Division of the Office of the Secretary of State on
March 2, 2004, amended on April 2, 2004 and corrected on
June 9, 2004. Section IV, (d)(i) of the Certificate is hereby amended to read,
in its entirety, as follows: (d)(i) The Conversion Price for each share of
Series A Preferred Stock in effect on any Conversion Date
shall be the lesser of (a) four dollars ($4.00)
(the Fixed Conversion Price) or (b) eighty percent
(80%) of the lowest closing bid price for the Common
Stock in the ten (10) business days preceding the date of
conversion, but in no event less than twenty five percent
(25%) of the Fixed Conversion Price (the Floating
Conversion Price). For purposes of determining the
closing bid price on any day, reference shall be to the
closing bid price for a share of Common Stock on such
date on the NASD OTC Bulletin Board, as reported on
Bloomberg, L.P. (or similar organization or agency
succeeding to its functions of reporting prices). IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being the Chief Financial
Officer and Secretary of O2Diesel Corporation, hereby declares under
penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct this 2nd
day of September, 2004. O2Diesel CorporationBy
    
    /s/ David L. KoontzDavid L. KoontzChief Financial Officer and Secretary
No. 40424.

#### Protest 964556-G of International Forwarding Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

On the record presented the protest was overruled.
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



|                                    |  |                                                             
|----------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|NAME                                |  | STATE OR OTHER JURISDICTION OF
INCORPORATION OR ORGANIZATION
|1.    ClassroomDirect.com, LLC      |  | Delaware                                                    
|                                    | 
|2.    Childcraft Education Corp.    |  | New York                                                    
|                                    | 
|3.    Bird-in-Hand Woodworks, Inc.  |  | New Jersey                                                  
|                                    | 
|4.    Frey Scientific, Inc.         |  | Delaware                                                    
|                                    | 
|5.    Sportime, LLC                 |  | Delaware                                                    
|                                    | 
|6.    Sax Arts & Crafts, Inc.       |  | Delaware                                                    
|                                    | 
|7.    Premier Agendas, Inc.         |  | Washington                                                  
|                                    | 
|8.    Premier School Agendas, Ltd.  |  | Canada                                                      
|                                    | 
|9.    Select Agendas, Corp.         |  | Canada                                                      
|                                    | 
|10.    Califone International, Inc. |  | Delaware                                                    
|                                    | 
|11.    Delta Education, LLC         |  | Delaware
Regulatory Evaluation 

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD 

{(vou make changes to the values in the table below. you IIIllS! ensllf"<! the totals upda!e accordingly {!' 

rhev do not click (m· Tab J into and then out o{rhe charwed cell. ~ ' / . ~ 

Estimated Costs: 

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

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

Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor + u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Inspect 4.5 $0 668 " 

') ()I () f(J r Ot' 

'I {)! { ,1(1 I' ( ,() 

I IJI I '•( lfH 

t' I\ (' l 

'· "I 1 I l(t {)( 

tll IJ (l(l (' ,,, 

I ;,1 ., (;() ,, 

•' I )I { (if} I' 

no i I' I 

I IJI) I 

f•fl l l 

' I O(l I .f• 

1 tll t ()(, I ( 

II I HI Ill 

E II I II (.I 

' ')I 1) (' II 

,, il 'I I 'J(\ 

r •I /J • •ft f, I 0 

I If (I 1/ 

The known number of products in compliance: 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $255,510 

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 closereplacement) up) 

rear sparupper cap 368 32440.00 '' splice repair 

rear spar upper cap 368.0 ' 60222.00 replacement 

''" 

',( (II 

6 
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): 

Executive Order 12866: 

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

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

ls the AD significant? · 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

YES* D NO~ 

YES* D NO [8] 

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

either a Yes or No answer. -

YESD NO~ 

Explanation: 

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? ~ 

YES* D NO [8] 

*Explanation: 

7
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6515

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES BERNARD LOWERY, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-93-37-P, CA-99-73-P) Submitted: June 17, 1999 Decided: June 23, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Bernard Lowery, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:James Bernard Lowery appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Lowery , Nos. CR-93-37-P; CA99-73-P (W.D.N.C. Mar. 5, 1999). 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.

AFFIRMED
No. 53248.

#### J. D. Smith Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 517368-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 91 (Friday, May 11, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 26849]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9111]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-61,396]

Rayolite; Division of Pac-Tec Incorporated; Newark, OH; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on April 30, 2007, in response to a 
petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Rayolite, 
Division of Pac-Tec Incorporated, Newark, Ohio.
    The petition regarding the investigation has been deemed invalid. 
The petitioner was not a company official but one of the dislocated 
workers. A petition filed by workers must be filed by three (3) 
individuals. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 4th day of May 2007.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7-9111 Filed 5-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6052

RUSSELL L. PREVATTE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

W. ELAINE CHAPMAN, Deputy Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior

District Judge. (5:07-hc-02040-H)

Submitted: May 5, 2008 Decided: June 25, 2008

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Russell L. Prevatte, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Russell L. Prevatte, a federal prisoner, appeals the

district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241

(2000) petition and his motion for reconsideration. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Prevatte v.

Chapman, No. 5:07-hc-02040-H (E.D.N.C. Aug. 14, 2007; Nov. 19,

2007). We deny Prevatte’s motion to substitute party. 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.

AFFIRMED
---

Exhibit 99.12

Summary of Loan Agreement Entered into by and between
Shenzhen BAK Battery Co., Ltd. (the Company) and Shenzhen Longgang Branch,
Bank of China (the Creditor) Dated November 6, 2009

Main articles:

- Contract number: (2009)Zhenzhongyin Ganghuilizi 071;
- Loan principal: JPY 58,584,000;
- Loan Term: from November 6, 2009 to November 6, 2010;
- Interest rate: fixed at 0.74375%;

| | ■ | Interest settlement day is the maturity date of
      the loan;
| | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------
| | ■ | Penalty interest rate for delayed repayment is
      2.23%;    

- If any of the following occurs, the Creditor is entitled to demand
  prepayment of loan principal and interest before maturity and cancel all loans
  unprovided:

| | ■ | Delay in repayment of loan interest and the
      loan principal;        
| | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | ■ | The Company provides untrue declaration or
      breaks promise;         
| | ■ | The Company breaks other agreements with
      respect to its obligation;

- Breach of contract penalties: release loan agreement, demand prepayment of
  loan principal and interest before maturity; withdraw from any accounts of the
  Company the loan principal, interest and other fees; any other measures the
  Creditor believes necessary and possible, etc.
- Amount of collateral: RMB4,406,200

Headlines of the articles omitted

- Loan arrangement
- Interest clearing of the loan
- Fee
- Payment of the loan
- Guarantee
- Declaration and Promise of the Company
- Other agreements
- Modification, Amendment and Termination of Contract
- Disputation settlement
- Attachment
- Validity
- Text
- Notice

---
(Reap. Dec. 8432)

Entry No. 12105, etc.

#### S. Shamash & Sons, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided May 10, 1955)

*John D. Rode*for the plantiff.

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

Foed, Judge:

In the appeals listed in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, counsel for the respective parties have agreed that the market value or the price at the time of exportation to the United States of the involved bleached silk habutae at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale 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, including all costs, charges, and expenses specified in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, was 68 cents per yard, packed, for the 14 momme, and 58 cents per yard, packed, for the 12 momme, and that the price for home consumption was no higher.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, I find the proper dutiable export value for the merchandise here involved to be 68 cents per yard, packed, for the 14 momme, and 58 cents per yard, packed, for the 12 momme.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 54932.

#### Edward P. Paul & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 161311-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the facts and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importers. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty is not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protests were sustained to this extent.
(Reap. Dec. 8429)

Entry No. 919.

#### J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided May 10, 1955)

*Wallace & Schwartz*for the plaintiff.

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

Mollison, Judge:

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

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the issues in the above entitled appeal to reappraisement are the same in all material respects as the issues in the case of *United States*v. *Schroeder & Tremayne, Inc. et al.,*Suit 4783, decided in 41 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 243, C. A. D. 558, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, that the entered value of the merchandise involved in the above entitled case is equal to the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise was no higher.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this case may be deemed submitted on the foregoing 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 here involved, and that such value was the entered value.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court h as determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not prece dent except under the limite d circumstances setforth in 5 T H C IR . 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 31166

JU LI A M AR I TZAPAZ, I ndivi dua l l y ando n Beha l f o f H e rM i no rChi l dr e n; LI O N EL PAZ, I ndivi dua l l y ando n Beha l f o f H i s M i no rChi l dr e n, P l ai n t i f fs- A pp el l eesC ross - A pp el l an t s,
ve r s us O U R LA D YO F L O U R D E S R E G IO N A L M E D IC A L C E N T E R , IN C .; L A W R E N C E I. R U S S E L L , D efen da n t s- A pp el l an t sC ross - A pp el l ees.

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f o rt he W e s t e r n Di s t r i c to f Lo ui s i ana N o. 6: 01- C V

- 2693

B ef ore R E AV L E Y , SM ITH , an d D E N N IS, C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Aug ust21, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 07- 31166

R. 47.5 .4. 2 Ju l i a P az suedf

or m edi calm al practi ce and obtai n ed a su bstanti alaw ard fr o m th e ju r y . B o th s id e s a p p e a l. W e ha ve revi ew ed the bri efs, the ap pl i cabl e law , an d p ert i n en tport i on s of t h e rec ord an d hav e h eard t h e argu m en t s of coun sel
. T h ere i s no reversibl e err or i n r e ga r d t o dut y o f

c ar e o rl i ab i l i t y. The r e i s s uf f i c i e ntev i de nc e t o sup po r tt he aw arded dam ages. T h e onl y reversibl e err or i s i n t h e red u ction of dam ages by the dis t ri ct c o u r tt h a tr e s u l t e df r o m t h e e r r o n e o u s i n c l u s i o n o f D r . Me z a o n t h e j u r yf o r m. S eeL a. R
. S
. 4 0: 129 9. 41, -. 47. T h e j u ry foun d da m ages of $20 0, 000
. For t h e rem ain in gt w o defen da n t s, 90% of t h at am ou n t(w h i ch i s $180 , 000 ) i s aw arded a g a in s t t h e h o s p ita l, a n d1 0 % (w h ic h is $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 ) is a w a r d e da g a in s t D r . R u s s e ll. B ecau se of

the st ate da m age cap, the h ospi t alm u stp ay on l y $10 0, 000 an d R u ssel lt h e f

u l l$20 , 000 , l eaving $8 0, 000 t o b e sou gh tf rom t h e st ate pati en t ’ s c om p e n s a tio n fu n d
. S eeL a . R .S
. 4 0 :12 9 9 .42 B (2 ). T h e j u dg m en ti s M O D IFIE D a s in d ica ted ab ove. I n al lot h er r espect s, t h e r e b e i n gn o r e v e r s ib l e e r r o r , t h e j u d g me n ti s A F F I RMED.