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





Obligor:
      Shenzhen BAK Battery Co., Ltd





Creditor:
      Agricultural Bank of China, Shenzhen Branch





Whereas,
      the Obligor and the Creditor have entered into a loan agreement (contract number
      is 81101200800000816) (hereinafter called “Loan Agreement”). Hereby, the parties
      agree to enter into the following supplemental agreements for amending part
      of
      the clauses of the Loan Agreement:





1.
            Amending
                the item 4 of Clause 9 of the Loan Agreement as follows:
              The
                  Obligor undertakes to obtain the Land Use Right Certificate
                  (“Certificate”) for BAK Industrial Park located at Aotou village, Kuichong
                  Street, Longgang District, Shenzhen, before September 18, 2008.
                  The
                  Certificate cannot be pledged to any third party without the Creditor’s
                  written consent.
                
                In
                  case the Obligor breaches this undertaking, the Creditor is entitled
                  to
                  demand the Obligor to bear its responsibilities for breach of Contract
                  in
                  accordance with the Clause 6 of the Loan
                  Agreement.





2.
            No
                amendment to the other clauses of the Loan
                Agreement.





3.
            In
                case of any difference between the Loan Agreement and this Supplemental
                Agreement, the Supplemental Agreement shall
                prevail.





4.
            This
                Supplemental Agreement becomes effective since it is signed and
                stamped.





5.
            This
                Supplemental Agreement has five originals. Each of the Obligor and
                the
                Creditor has one original, and each of the guarantors has one original,
                which has the same effect.





The
      Obligor (sign and stamp): /s/ Shenzhen BAK Battery Co., Ltd


Legal
      representative or licensed representative: /s/ Xiangqian Li


Address:


Postal
      number:





Creditor
      (sign and stamp): /s/ Agricultural Bank of China


Principal
      or licensed representative:


Address:


Postal
      number:


Time:





Venue:
      Shatoujiao, Shenzhen





Representations
      and Undertaking of the Guarantors:


They
      have
      already received the above-mentioned “Supplemental Agreement”, and have no
      disagreement with all the clauses of the Supplement Agreement. They undertake
      to
      undertake joint and several liabilities for the indebtedness of the Obligor
      under the Loan Agreement.





Guarantors
      (sign and stamp): /s/ BAK International Limited; /s/ Xiangqian Li


Legal
      representative or licensed representative:








Signature
      date: Aug 6, 2008
S. 1412 

One Hundred Twelfth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the fifth day of January, two thousand and eleven 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 462 Washington Street, Woburn, Massachusetts, as the ‘‘Officer John Maguire Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. OFFICER JOHN MAGUIRE POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 462 Washington Street, Woburn, Massachusetts, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Officer John Maguire Post 

Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Officer John Maguire Post Office’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
**Exhibit31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

** **

 

I, Pam Strunk, certify that:

 

1.                                       I have reviewedthis annual report on Form 10-Q of AES Red Oak, LLC (the “registrant”);

 

2.                                       Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.                                       Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.                                       Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)              Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

b)             Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)              Disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.                                       Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)              all significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)             any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

 

Date: May 10, 2004

 
|   | /s/ Pam Strunk          |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Pam Strunk              |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
No. A-739 (74-1169).

#### Rogers et al. *v.*Inmates’ Councilmatic Voice et al.

Appeal from D. C. N. D. Ohio. Application for stay of execution of paragraph 7 of order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, presented to Mr. Justice Stewart, and by him referred to the Court, granted pending final disposition of appeal.
99-0603 (La. 4/23/99)

#### Wendell CLEMENT, et al. v. AMERICAN MOTORIST INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.

No. 99-C-0603.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1999.

IN RE: American Dynasty Surp. Lines; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs; Parish of Calcasieu 14th Judicial District Court Div. “E” Number 95-223; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Number CW98-0504

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J. not on panel.

MARCUS and VICTORY, JJ. would grant the writ.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of
American Physicians Capital, Inc. (the "Company"), for purposes of 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

         (1) The Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) The information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.


Date:  August 9, 2004


/s/ R. Kevin Clinton
------------------------------------
R. Kevin Clinton
President and Chief Executive Officer


 /s/ Frank H. Freund
------------------------------------
Frank H. Freund
Senior Executive Vice President, Treasurer
And Chief Financial Officer

<PAGE>
No. 44262.

#### Protest 541066-G of I. Fujimoto (Honolulu).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

The claim at 35 percent under paragraph 775 was sustained on the authority of Abstract 44261.
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 report on Form 10-QSB of ComCam International, Inc. for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“Report”), I, Don Gilbreath, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

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

|   | (2) | The information contained in this Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the small business issuer at the end of the period covered by this Report and results of operations of the small business issuer for the period covered by this Report. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

/s/ Don Gilbreath

Don Gilbreath

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

August 13, 2007

 

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the small business issuer for the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

 

A signed original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to the small business issuer and will be retained by the small business issuer and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

 

29
Before the Second Division,

October 1, 1941

No. 46396.

#### Protest 665308-G of Wm. Filenes Sons Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of cotton plush articles woven on the loom as completed articles and that it is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Ramallah*v. *United States*(T. D. 47681). In accordance therewith the claim at 40 percent under paragraph 923 was sustained.
No. 43162.

#### Protests 999377-G, etc., of L. Greenberg & Son et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstracts 41633 and 38680 the pencil sharpeners and needle threaders in question were held dutiable at 40 percent under paragraph 339 as claimed.
#### Chris D. DAVENPORT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 98-0939.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 9, 1998.

Chris D. Davenport, Appellant, pro se.

Robert Butterworth, Attorney General, and L. Michael Billmeier, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See Davenport v. State,*664 So.2d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

*17BARFIELD, C.J., DAVIS, J., and SHIVERS, DOUGLASS B., Senior Judge, concur.
**Exhibit 10**

----

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED      PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation    by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 33-16927, No.    33-90398, No. 333-59981, No. 333-57266, No. 333-104065 and No. 333-118579)    of Reuters Group PLC of our report dated 7 March 2005, except Note 23    and    the “Summary    of differences between UK and US generally accepted accounting principles”,    as to which the date is 21 February 2006, relating to the financial statements    which appear in this Annual Report on Form 20-F/A for the year ended December    31, 2004.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP  London, EnglandFebruary 21 2006

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Arla WAXMAN, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-50481.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 16, 2005.

Nancy B. Spiegel, Esq., Ronald L. Cheng, Esq., Sandra R. Klein, USLA— Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Terri A. Law, Esq., Ecoff *&*Law, Beverly Hills, CA, 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 **

Aria Waxman appeals her guilty-plea conviction and sentence for false representation of Social Security numbers, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B).

Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Waxman has filed a *859brief stating there are no grounds for relief, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. No pro se supplemental brief has been filed.

We have conducted an independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 88, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). We affirm the conviction. We remand the sentence for further proceedings consistent with *United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel on appeal is denied.

The conviction is AFFIRMED, and the sentence is 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Case No. 8,134.

#### LAVERTY et al. v. SNELLING.

[3 Cranch, C. C. 290.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

May Term, 1828.

Bail in Civil Cause — Affidavit to Hold to Bail — Sufficiency of Same — Merits of Case.

1. If the affidavit to hold to bail be in itself sufficient, the court will not. upon a motion to appear without hail, inquire into the merits of the case.

2. An affidavit that the defendant is justly indebted to the plaintiff in a certain sum, for goods *1199sold and delivered to a third person upon the written guaranty of the defendant, is sufficient to hold the defendant to bail.

The affidavit to hold to bail stated that the defendant [Josiah Snelling] was justly indebted to the plaintiffs, [Laverty and Gantley,] in the sum of $4,303.43, for goods sold and delivered to one C. P. Hunt, at the defendant’s request, and upon his written guaranty, which was produced.

Mr. Lear moved for leave to enter his appearance for the defendant without special bail; contending that the guaranty was void because it does not show a consideration for the guaranty; and that it did not appear that the plaintiffs had given notice to the defendant that they had accepted the guaranty, or had notified him of the amount of goods sold to Hunt upon the credit of the defendant; that the defendant had a right to go into the merits of the case and show that -the' contract was void. Sumner v. Green, 1 H. Bl. 301; Clarke v. Bussell, 3 Dali. [3 TJ. S.] 415; Forrester, 153.

Mr. Wallacli, contra.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

THE COÜBT

overruled the motion.
#### James E. AYMOND v. NATIONAL SAFETY CONSULTANTS, INC.

No. 98-CC-0878.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 8, 1998.

In re Aymond, James E.;—Plaintiffs); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ; Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 97-12519; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CW97 2497.

Denied.

KNOLL, J., not on panel.
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

|   |                                                                                                                                                         |                    |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|
|   | **CYBER                DEFENSE SYSTEMS, INC.**                                                                                                               |
|   |                                                                                                                                                         |
|        | By:                                                                                                                                                | /s/ William C. Robinson |
|   | William              C. RobinsonPrincipal                Executive Officer, CEO,President,                Chairman andChief                Financial Officer |
|   |                                                                                                                                                         |
|   | November                19, 2007                                                                                                                             |

----
March 10, 2015

Mr. Brandon Heess

12286 Brickellia Street

San Diego CA 92129

Dear Mr. Heess:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your January 7, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

0024), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does 

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following:

• The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and the extent of 

the relief you seek.

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

• The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

• Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Nia Daniels

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
3

Project No.: AXX-xx-xxx-E

Project Officer: _______________

ARM-104:TAdams:xx/xx/xx:Doc#xxxx

ARM-1/100/104:Program Office [or specific OPR routing symbol]

[Insert Stylewriter Score Here]

[INSERT ENVELOPE ADDRESS HERE]
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1224 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1224

  To amend Public Law 106-392 to maintain annual base funding for the 
Upper Colorado and San Juan fish recovery programs through fiscal year 
                                 2023.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 16, 2011

 Mr. Bingaman introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend Public Law 106-392 to maintain annual base funding for the 
Upper Colorado and San Juan fish recovery programs through fiscal year 
                                 2023.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Bureau of Reclamation Fish Recovery 
Programs Reauthorization Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF FISH RECOVERY PROGRAMS.

    Section 3(d)(2) of Public Law 106-392 (114 Stat. 1604 and 1605) is 
amended by inserting at the end the following: ``For fiscal years 2012 
through 2023, there are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums 
as may be necessary to provide for the annual base funding for the 
Recovery Implementation Programs above and beyond the continued use of 
power revenues to fund the operation and maintenance of capital 
projects and monitoring.''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 55420.

#### Butler Bros. *v.*United States,

protest 142607-K/12999 (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.