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

Exhibit 99.2

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 2, 2010

Main contents

- Contract number: (2010) Shenyinsun daizi 005;
- Loan principal: RMB 50 million;
- Loan term: from February 2, 2010 to May 2, 2010;
- Floating interest rate: 4.374%, rate adjustment in line with
benchmark interest rate adjustment of The Peoples Bank of China;

> Penalty interest rate for delayed repayment: 4.374% plus 50%
> *4.374%;
>       Penalty interest rate for embezzlement of loan proceeds:
> 4.374% *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

---
Exhibit 32

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

     In  connection  with the 10-QSB of  American  Utilicraft  Corporation  (the
"Company"), the undersigned officers hereby certify that the Company's quarterly
report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter that ended March 31, 2004 (the  "Report"),
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof,

     a)   fully complies with the  requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78M or 78O (D)); and

     b)   that information  contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in
          all  material  respects,   the  financial  condition  and  results  of
          operations of the issuer



     This certificate is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not
be  deemed  to be a part  of the  Report  or  "filed"  for  any  other  purposes
whatsoever.


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this certificate to be signed by
it Chief Financial Officer and its Principal Accounting Officer this 19th day of
November, 2004.


 /s/ John J. Dupont                         /s/ M. Karen Shoemaker
-------------------------------------      -------------------------------------
John J. Dupont                             M. Karen Shoemaker
President and Chief Executive Officer      Principal Accounting Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Abdulah ZARGAR, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-10049.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 4, 2005.

Ashley Adams-Feldman, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Douglas C. Erickson, Maynard Murray Cronin *&*O’Sullivan, P.L.C., Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Abdulah Zargar appeals his 105-month sentence imposed after this court vacated his original sentence and remanded for re-sentencing. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we remand for re-sentencing under the advisory guidelines.

Zargar contends that the district court erred in departing upward one criminal history category pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(e) based on past criminal conduct that was dissimilar to the crimes in the underlying conviction and was not supported by reliable evidence. We disagree. As we recognized in *United States v. G.L.,*143 F.3d 1249, 1254 (9th Cir.1998), “[U.S.S.G.] § 4A1.3(e) does not mandate that prior criminal conduct be either similar or adult to warrant departure.” *Id.*Moreover, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion by departing upwards one criminal history category based on insufficient or unreliable evidence. *See United States v. Marina-Cuevas,*147 F.3d 889, 894-95 (9th Cir.1998).

Although we agree that the district court was within its discretion to depart upward one criminal history category pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 under the then mandatory sentencing guidelines, we cannot automatically affirm Zargar’s sentence because the Sentencing Guidelines are no *66longer mandatory. *See United States v. Booker,*- U.S. -,---, 125 S.Ct. 738, 764-67, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). We remand Zargar’s sentence pursuant to *United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005), for the district court to determine whether it would have sentenced Zargar differently under the now-advisory federal sentencing guidelines. If so, the district court shall vacate Zargar’s sentence and re-sentence him under the *post-Booker*advisory Guidelines. If not, Zargar’s sentence shall remain undisturbed. *See United States v. Hermoso-Garcia,*413 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir.2005).

Zargar’s motion for leave to file a reply brief is granted. The Clerk is directed to file the reply brief that was received on October 28, 2003.

Sentence 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.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Small Business team recognized at commander’s town hall

DLA Land and Maritime Public Affairs

                COLUMBUS, Ohio  –              

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

## Related Stories

Industry partnerships, small business dominate final day of logistics conference

Small Business team receives strategic goals award

Puget Sound assists Washington based small businesses in discovering opportunities to work with DLA

Suppliers learn tips for government contracting at free training session

DLA small-business office helps train businesses on government contracting

Command L&MCulture L&MDetachments L&MDLA L&MLeadership L&MSmall Business L&M
EXHIBIT 32.2



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


This certification set forth below is hereby made solely for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and
may not be relied upon or used for any other purposes.

In connection with the Annual Report of NBC Acquisition Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Alan G. Siemek, Vice
President and Treasurer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 or other
document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of the written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.



                                    /s/ Alan G. Siemek
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Alan G. Siemek
                                    Vice President and Treasurer
                                    (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
                                    June 29, 2006
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHELL CORTEZ,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

AREF FAKHOURY, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 10-56046

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-03396-JFW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 18, 2014** 

Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Michell Cortez appeals from the district court’s

judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his conviction

for two counts of forgery by possessing a blank or unfinished check with the intent

FILED

FEB 26 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
to defraud, in violation of section 475(b) of the California Penal Code. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Cortez contends that his two convictions, based on his possession of two

different individuals’ checks, violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because they

resulted from a single act of possessing blank checks. The state maintains that this

claim is unexhausted. We need not address this issue because Cortez does not

raise a colorable federal claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2); Cassett v. Stewart, 406

F.3d 614, 623-24 (9th Cir. 2005). 

“With respect to cumulative sentences imposed in a single trial, the Double

Jeopardy Clause does no more than prevent the sentencing court from prescribing

greater punishment than the legislature intended.” Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S.

359, 366 (1983). We are bound by the California Court of Appeal’s determination

in this case that section 475(b) permits treating the possession of checks of two

victims as separate offenses. See Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74, 76 (2005) (per

curiam) (“[A] state court’s interpretation of state law, including one announced on

direct appeal of the challenged conviction, binds a federal court sitting in habeas

corpus.”); Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 629-30 & n.3 (1988) (federal habeas

court is not at liberty to disregard a California Court of Appeal’s rulings on state

law when the California Supreme Court has denied review). 

2 10-56046
To the extent Cortez contends that his multiple convictions violate state law,

such a challenge is not cognizable on federal habeas review. See Lewis v. Jeffers,

497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990) (“[F]ederal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of

state law[.]”). 

AFFIRMED. 

3 10-56046
#### Walter D. SMALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 97-5074.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 12, 1999.

Guy J. Ferrante, King *&*Everhard, Falls Church, Virginia, for plaintiff-appellant.

Armando O. Bonilla, Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, David M. Cohen, Director, James M. Kin-sella, Assistant Director, of counsel, Lt. Col. Ralph A. Bauer, Chief, Military Personnel Branch, Lt. Col. Steven J. Pecinov-sky, Attorney, General Litigation Division, U.S. Air Force, Arlington, Virginia, for defendant-appellee.

Before: PLAGER, CLEVENGER, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

A combined petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing in banc having been filed by the Appellant, and a response thereto having been invited by the court and filed by the Appellee, and the petition for rehearing having been referred to the panel that heard the appeal, and thereafter the suggestion for rehearing in banc and response having been referred to the circuit judges who are in regular active service,

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The petition for rehearing is granted for the limited purpose of amending the court’s opinion of October 14,1998.

(2) The suggestion for rehearing in banc is declined.

(3) The mandate of the court will issue on March 19,1999.

ORDER

Mr. Small has petitioned for rehearing of this court’s decision dated October 14, 1998. We grant Mr. Small’s petition for the limited purpose of amending our earlier opinion as follows:

> 1. Delete the paragraph bridging pages 11 and 12 [158 F.3d 576, 582](begin-ning with “Furthermore” and ending with “this issue as well.”)

So ORDERED.
No. 47020.

#### Protest 61886-K of Heinsheimer Bros., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 46497 the claim at 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (b) (1) was sustained.
EXHIBIT
      4.1

    


    ICC
      WORLDWIDE, INC.

    


    CERTIFICATE
      OF DESIGNATION

    INCREASING
      THE NUMBER OF SHARES OF PREFERRED STOCK 

    DESIGNATED
      AS SERIES C PREFERRED STOCK OF

    ICC
      WORLDWIDE, INC.

    


    ICC
      WORLDWIDE, INC. (formerly
      Torbay Holdings, Inc.), a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), certifies
      that pursuant to the authority contained in Article Fourth of its Certificate
      of
      Incorporation and in accordance with the provisions of Section 151 of the
      General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, the Corporation has the
      authority to issue 30,000,000 shares of Preferred Stock, par value $0.0001
      per
      share; and, further

    


    The
      Board
      of Directors of the Corporation has the authority to issue any or all of such
      shares in one or more series and by resolution to provide for the designation
      of
      each series to be issued pursuant to the foregoing authority.

    


    The
      Board
      of Directors previously designated 700,000 shares as Series 1 Preferred Stock,
      10,000,000 shares of Series B Preferred Stock, and 7,500,000 as Series C
      Preferred Stock leaving 11,800,000 shares undesignated.

    


    On
      December 3, 2007, the Board of Directors of the Corporation unanimously adopted
      the following resolution regarding the designation of an additional 2,500,000
      shares of preferred stock as Series C Preferred Stock. This brings the total
      of
      preferred stock designated as Series C Preferred Stock to
      10,000,000:

    


    “RESOLVED
      that the Board of Directors of the Company hereby ratifies the filing of the
      Certificate of Designation with the Delaware Secretary of State to increase
      the
      number of shares of preferred stock designated as Series C Preferred Stock
      from
      7,500,000 to a total of 10,000,000 shares.” 

    


    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, TORBAY HOLDINGS, INC. has caused this Certificate of
      Designation to be executed by its President and attested to by its Secretary
      this 14th day of December, 2007.

    


    TORBAY
      HOLDINGS, INC.

    


    /s/
      Richard K Lauer

    President

    ATTEST:

    


    


    


    


    /s/
      Richard K Lauer

    Secretary
No. 96-5846.

#### Moorehead *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 96-7889.

#### DeWitte et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v CHARLES D. KEYES, Master Sergeant, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

8 USCMA 730, 25 CMR 234

No. 10,990

Decided February 21, 1958

*Lieutenant Colonel Ellis L. Gottlieb*and *Major George M. Wilson*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Robert W. Michels*and *Major Carl Goldschlager*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

HomeR Ferguson, Judge:

Review was granted in this case to consider whether the accused was prejudiced by reason of the law officer’s references to paragraph 76a of the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1951, on the question of sentence. Although the accused was tried before the date established in United States v Rinehart, 8 USCMA 402, 24 CMR 212, when the use of the Manual by court members was to be completely discontinued, we believe the references under the circumstances of the instant case constitute prejudicial error requiring a new sentence determination by a court-martial. The accused had pleaded guilty to and was convicted of the larceny of military payment certificates from a noncommissioned officer’s club. The court-martial adjudged a sentence which included a punitive discharge, partial forfeitures and confinement at hard labor for six months. Faced with a similar issue in United States v Starnes, 8 USCMA 427, 24 CMR 237, we held that it was prejudicial error, where the law officer’s instructions on *731sentence referred the court to paragraph 76 of the Manual, supra, which in turn refers to paragraph *33h,*which provides in part that the retention in the armed forces of thieves and persons guilty of moral turpitude injuriously reflects upon the good name of the military service and its self-respecting personnel. Our holding, therefore, in the instant case is controlled by *Starnes,*supra, and a similar result must obtain.

The decision of the board of review is reversed. A rehearing on the sentence is ordered.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

LatimeR, Judge

(dissenting):

I dissent for the reasons I expressed in United States v Rinehart, 8 USCMA 402, 24 CMR 212.
# C_2014052EN.01003603.xml

| 22.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2014 — Optilingua v OHIM — Esposito (ALPHATRAD)

(Case T-538/12) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community figurative mark - Genuine use of the mark - Extent of the use - Second subparagraph of Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2014/C 52/69

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Optilingua Holding SA (Épalingues, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Rizzo, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Pétrequin and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Michele Esposito (Cava de' Tirreni, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2012 (Case R 444/2011-1) relating to revocation proceedings between Mr Michele Esposito and Optilingua Holding SA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Optilingua Holding SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Optilingua Holding SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 9.2.2013.

1

---