alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Shenzhen      Development Bank**

**Loan      Certificate (3)**

| Applicant                             |   | Shenzhen                BAK Battery Co., Ltd               |
|---------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------|
| Currency                              |   | RMB                                                        |   | Amount |   | 50,000,000.00 |
| Loan                Term              |   | From                December 20, 2007 to December 20, 2008 |
| Usage                                 |   | Working                Capital                             |
| Annual                rate            |   | 7.29                %                                      |
| Signature                of Applicant |   | Stamp                of Applicant                          |   | Signature                of Shenzhen Development Bank |   | Stamp                of Longgang Branch,** **Shenzhen                Development Bank |
| /s/                Xiangqian Li       |   |                                                       |   | /s/                Tezheng Chen |   |   |

----
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1282 

To expand the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium to include the 

SUNY National Center for Security and Preparedness. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 27, 2011 

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mrs. GILLIBRAND) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To expand the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium 

to include the SUNY National Center for Security and 

Preparedness. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Domestic 

5 Preparedness Consortium Enhancement Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds that— 

8 (1) the State University of New York (SUNY) 

9 is the Nation’s largest comprehensive system of pubVerDate Mar 15 2010 17:39 Jun 28, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1282.IS S1282

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1282 IS

1 lic higher education, comprising 64 campuses across 

2 the State of New York; 

3 (2) the SUNY National Center for Security and 

4 Preparedness oversees a coordinated strategy to le5 verage the resources of all 64 SUNY campuses to 

6 develop homeland security training programs and to 

7 apply SUNY’s homeland security research expertise; 

8 (3) the SUNY National Center for Security and 

9 Preparedness and the SUNY campuses provide ex10 traordinary capabilities to help the Nation in the 

11 areas of intelligence, infrastructure protection anal12 ysis, information sharing, and critical decision-mak13 ing; 

14 (4) the SUNY National Center for Security and 

15 Preparedness is poised to create a program in the 

16 areas of intelligence, infrastructure protection anal17 ysis, information sharing, and critical decision-mak18 ing with national training capabilities; 

19 (5) the management team of the SUNY Na20 tional Center for Security and Preparedness has 

21 many years of experience working with the National 

22 Domestic Preparedness Consortium; 

23 (6) the SUNY National Center for Security and 

24 Preparedness has established partnerships that will 

25 allow the SUNY National Center for Security and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1282 IS

1 Preparedness immediately to identify and certify in2 structors, pilot and certify courses, and set up an in3 frastructure that is compatible with the reporting re4 quirements of the Department of Homeland Secu5 rity; and 

6 (7) of the member institutions of the National 

7 Domestic Preparedness Consortium of the Depart8 ment of Homeland Security, none are currently fo9 cusing on providing training in the areas of intel10 ligence, infrastructure protection analysis, informa11 tion sharing, and critical decision-making. 

12 SEC. 3. ENHANCEMENT OF THE NATIONAL DOMESTIC PRE13 PAREDNESS CONSORTIUM. 

14 The National Domestic Preparedness Consortium 

15 shall include the SUNY National Center for Security and 

16 Preparedness. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 15.1



             INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM'S CONSENT

      We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-117241) pertaining to the Fundtech Ltd. 1997 Israeli Share
Option Plan for the Employees of Fundtech Ltd., the Fundtech Ltd. 1999 Employee
Option Plan, and the Fundtech Ltd. Directors' Option Plan, of our report, dated
March 15, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
Fundtech Ltd. included in its Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended
December 31, 2004.



/s/ Brightman Almagor & Co
--------------------------
BRIGHTMAN ALMAGOR & CO
Certified Public Accountants
A member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

Tel Aviv, Israel
May 26, 2005
Exhibit 10.18.1

On April 30, 2001 Frank Vaculin, an executive officer of the Company, terminated his employment with the Company. Upon his termination, Mr. Vaculin
was paid the equivalent of six months of base salary in May 2001 and those stock options of the Company held by Mr. Vaculin that would have vested had he been employed by the Company
through October 31, 2001 were vested. At the time of his termination, Mr. Vaculin had an outstanding loan obligation to the Company of unpaid principal and accrued interest in the amount
of $439,628 which was represented by a non recourse promissory note secured by Mr. Vaculin's shares of the Company's common stock. On April 30, 2001 Mr. Vaculin was in default
under the terms of this note and related instruments and the Company collected and took full right and title to an aggregate of 65,731 shares of the Company's common stock owned by Mr. Vaculin
and held in escrow as partial consideration of Mr. Vaculin's indebtedness to the Company under the note.

---

QuickLinks
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

956 

KA 13-02023 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GREGORY L. RUSSELL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (DEBORAH K. JESSEY OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (ASHLEY R. SMALL OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Deborah

A. Haendiges, J.), rendered November 4, 2013. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon

in the fourth degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his

plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree

(Penal Law § 265.01 [2]), defendant contends that Supreme Court erred

in issuing an order of protection in favor of two witnesses (see CPL

530.13 [4] [a]), i.e., the mother of defendant’s children and their

daughter. As a preliminary matter, we agree with defendant that his

waiver of the right to appeal does not preclude us from considering

his contention inasmuch as the order of protection was “not a part of

the plea agreement” (People v Lilley, 81 AD3d 1448, 1448, lv denied 17

NY3d 860), and is not a part of his sentence (see People v Nieves, 2

NY3d 310, 316; People v Tate, 83 AD3d 1467, 1467). We note, however,

that defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review by not

objecting at sentencing to the issuance of the order of protection in

favor of those two witnesses (see CPL 470.05 [2]; Nieves, 2 NY3d at

315-317; People v Collins, 117 AD3d 1535, 1535; People v Loffler, 111

AD3d 1059, 1060-1061; People v Sweeney, 106 AD3d 841, 842). In any

event, we conclude that the contention lacks merit (see CPL 530.13 [4]

[a]; People v Wilson, 115 AD3d 1229, 1229, lv denied 23 NY3d 969).

Entered: September 26, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-60746

Summary Calendar

Achaleke Fuanya, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A201 744 894

Before Davis, Smith, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Achaleke Fuanya, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for 

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his 

appeal from an order of the Immigration Judge (IJ). He challenges the BIA’s 

determination that he was ineligible for asylum and relief under the 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 1, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-60746 Document: 00516414645 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/01/2022
No. 21-60746

2

Convention Against Torture (CAT). He fails to brief the issue whether the 

BIA erred by dismissing his appeal from the denial of withholding of removal 

and thus has waived any arguments he may have had regarding this issue. See 

Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). Insofar as he 

challenges the BIA’s conclusion that he waived the issue whether he 

submitted sufficient evidence to corroborate his discredited testimony, we 

lack jurisdiction to consider this issue because it is unexhausted. See 

Martinez-Guevara v. Garland, 27 F.4th 353, 360 (5th Cir. 2022).

We review the BIA’s decision for substantial evidence, see Zhang 

v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005), and consider the IJ’s decision 

only insofar as it influenced the BIA, see Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 

(5th Cir. 2018). Fuanya’s challenge to the BIA’s adverse credibility 

determination is unavailing because the disputed determination is supported 

by “specific and cogent reasons derived from the record,” see Zhang, 432 

F.3d at 344, and consideration of the record as a whole does not show that 

“no reasonable fact-finder” could make such a determination, see Singh, 880 

F.3d at 225; see also id. at 224. The record refutes his assertion that the BIA 

failed to consider his country conditions evidence, and he has not shown that 

the record evidence compels a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA on the 

issue whether he has shown he more likely than not would be tortured with 

official acquiescence if repatriated. See Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 

493 (5th Cir. 2015); Zhang, 432 F.3d at 344. The petition for review is 

DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.

Case: 21-60746 Document: 00516414645 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/01/2022
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 10Q FOR
THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                         215,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,930,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  5,369,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,081,000
<PP&E>                                      16,871,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,619,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,333,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,199,000
<BONDS>                                      2,897,000<F1>
<COMMON>                                     3,952,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,285,000<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,333,000
<SALES>                                      6,479,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,539,000
<CGS>                                        5,934,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,371,000<F3>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              96,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 72,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    29,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             29,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    43,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
<FN>
<F1>TOTAL LONG-TERM DEBT(INCLUDING DEFERRED TAXES OF $912,000)
<F2>RETAINED EARNINGS
<F3>INCLUDES S,G & A OF $437,000
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joseph P. LYMORE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-30291.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 8, 2004.

Stephen A. Higginson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Brian M. Klebba, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Frank Sloan, Mandeville, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, Chief Judge, and WIENER and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Joseph P. Lymore has requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the briefs, record, and Mr. Lymore’s response discloses no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is granted, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal is dismissed. *See*5th Cir. R . 42.2. Lymore’s motion to proceed pro se is denied. *See United States v. Wagner,*158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir.1998).

MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; MOTION TO PROCEED PRO SE DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1713-19

CHRISTINE SAVAGE and

KYHEEM DAVIS,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

NEPTUNE TOWNSHIP, 

NEPTUNE TOWNSHIP 

POLICE DEPARTMENT,

JAMES M. HUNT, JR., and 

MICHAEL J. BASCOM,

Defendants-Respondents.

__________________________

Submitted September 23, 2021 – Decided November 4, 2021

Before Judges Alvarez, Haas, and Mawla.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Monmouth County, Docket No. L-0685-18.

Law Office of Donald F. Burke, attorneys for appellants 

(Donald F. Burke and Donald F. Burke, Jr., on the 

briefs).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-1713-19

Grace, Marmero & Associates, LLP, attorneys for 

respondents Neptune Township and Neptune Township 

Police Department (Michael R. Burns, on the brief).

Schenck, Price, Smith & King, LLP, attorneys for 

respondents James R. Hunt, Jr., and Michael J. Bascom,

join in the brief of respondents Neptune Township and 

Neptune Township Police Department. 

PER CURIAM

The parties to the appeal have settled the issues between them. In 

accordance with the stipulations they have filed, the appeal is dismissed with 

prejudice.
No. 43147.

#### Protest 882092-G of William Shaland (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of pencil sharpeners similar to those the subject of Abstract 41633. The claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was therefore sustained.
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 429 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Whereas the United States is one of the largest wine producing countries in the world, with the United States 

wine, grape, and grape products industry representing 

more than 1 percent of the $13,800,000,000 American 

economy in 2007; 
2 

•HCON 429 EH 

Whereas the wine and winegrape industry of Texas has an 

economic impact of $1,000,000,000 on the economy of 

Texas; 

Whereas since 2000, the wine and winegrape industry of 

Texas has experienced tremendous growth, with nearly 

90 percent of that growth resulting from an increase in 

the number and revenue of small wineries producing less 

than 5,000 gallons of wine each year; and 

Whereas in 2005, the wine and winegrape industry of 

Texas— 

(1) included 113 wineries and 220 commercial growers of winegrapes on 2,900 acres; 

(2) produced over 626,000 cases of wine; 

(3) provided the equivalent of 8,000 full-time jobs 

and paid over $234,000,000 in wages to workers; 

(4) generated revenue from wineries that produced 

an economic impact of $91,500,000 on the economy of 

Texas; 

(5) generated over $10,000,000 in revenue from 

vineyards in Texas; 

(6) attracted over 868,000 tourists to Texas, who 

spent over $220,000,000; and 

(7) generated over $69,000,000 in Federal, State, 

and local taxes: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That Congress— 

3 (1) recognizes the importance of the United 

4 States wine, winegrape, and grape products industry 

5 to the American economy; and 
3 

•HCON 429 EH 

1 (2) directs the Secretary of the Senate to trans2 mit a copy of this resolution to the Commissioner of 

3 the Texas Department of Agriculture and the Texas 

4 Wine and Grape Growers Association in Grapevine, 

5 Texas. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 27, 

2008. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 429 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the importance of the United States 

wine industry to the American economy.
No. 39089.

#### Protests 886388-G, etc., of Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of wood stands similar to those passed upon in *Kwong*v. *United States*(T. D. 49409). The claim at *33Ys*percent under paragraph 412 was therefore sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Financial Data Schedule for Form 10-Q for January 31, 1999
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000102198
<NAME> COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                         213,591
<SECURITIES>                                 2,070,905
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,539,256
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,903,074
<PP&E>                                         311,718
<DEPRECIATION>                                 175,980
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,622,179
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,540,186
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     60,675
<COMMON>                                        60,032
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,961,286
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,622,179
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,412,588
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,535,046
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,607
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (76,614)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (76,614)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (76,614)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)
        


</TABLE>
ERNEST E UGENE WATKINS

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 1909

__ ___________________________/

Opinion filed July 8, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. Mark W. Moseley , Judge

.

Ernest E ugene Watkins, pro se

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Giselle D. Lylen, Assista nt Attorney

General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, LEWIS, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.