alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRAE COMMISSION

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUGES

In the Matter of

)

)

)

)

)

)

POL YPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC., Docket No. 9327

Respondent.

ORDER ON RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO COMPEL

EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

I.

On January 13, 2009, Respondent submitted a motion to compel non-party Exide

Technologies ("Exide") to produce documents ("motion to compel"). On January 22,2009, '"

Exide submitted its opposition. By Order dated January 30,2009, Respondent was directed to

provide a status report. Respondent submitted its status report on February 3,2009.

For the reasons set forth below, Respondent's motion to compel Exide to produce

documents is GRANTED.

II.

Respondent states that it served its subpoena duces tecum on Exide on November 10,

2008 ("Exide subpoena"). Respondent states that Exide did not file any motions or objections in

response to the subpoena and has been engaged in negotiations to narrow the scope of the

subpoena. As of January 13, 2009, Respondent asserts, Exide had produced only six documents

in response to the Exide subpoena, thus prompting Respondent to file its motion to compeL. In

its motion to compel, Respondent noted that it needed responsive documents from Exide prior to

the depositions of Exide employees, scheduled for and taken the week of January 19, 2009.

In its opposition, Exide states that it has been working diligently to complete its

compliance at the earliest practicable date, but that the breadth of the subpoena has required a

time-consuming effort for compliance. Exide says that it recognizes that the documents

requested by the subpoena are potentially relevant to the proceeding and thus Exide does not

contest Respondent's right to issue such subpoena.

Respondent, in its status report, states that Exide produced 3,763 documents to

Respondent one day before the start of the depositions of Exide employees. Thus, Respondent

asserts, Respondent was unable to adequately prepare for the depositions. Further, Respondent
states, counsel for Respondent was advised by counsel for Exide that Exide's production was not

yet complete, that the production would continue to be made, and it was anticipated that the

production would be complete sometime between February 15 and Februar 28,2009.

III.

Exide's documents and deposition testimony are relevant to Respondent's defense in this

matter, as Exide has acknowledged. While Exide has taken steps to comply with Respondent's

subpoena request, Exide has failed to fully comply in a timely manner.

Respondent's motion to compel is GRANTED. Exide shall have ten calendar days to

complete production. In addition, Respondent shall have the opportnity, if needed, to resume

the depositions of Exide witnesses to examine them on subjects covered by the documents that

were produced on Januar 19, 2009 or thereafter.

ORDERED:

D. Michael Chappell DlV, ~

Administrative Law Judge

Date: February 5,2009

2
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2437 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2437

   To extend to May 17 the first scheduled individual estimated tax 
                           payment for 2021.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 8, 2021

  Mr. Smucker (for himself, Mr. Griffith, Ms. Tenney, Mr. Bacon, Mr. 
  Rose, Mr. Emmer, Mr. Carl, Mr. Hern, Mr. Meuser, and Mr. Van Drew) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend to May 17 the first scheduled individual estimated tax 
                           payment for 2021.

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

SECTION 1. DELAY OF FIRST SCHEDULED INDIVIDUAL ESTIMATED TAX PAYMENT 
              FOR 2021.

    In the case of any taxable year beginning in 2021, the second 
column of the table in section 6654(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 shall be applied by substituting ``May 17'' for ``April 15''.
                                 <all>
```
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6000** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. DAVID KEITH MILES , Defendant

– Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia
. Cameron McGowan Currie , District Judge. ( 3:02

- cr - 00548

- CMC

- 33; 3:10

- cv - 70223

- CMC )

Submitted : May 19, 2011 Decided: May 23, 2011

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un pub lished per curiam opinion
. David Keith Miles, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: David Keith M iles seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2010 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (200 6 ). A cert ificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that r easonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies reli ef on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently revie wed the record and conclude that Miles has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
#### In re ADOPTION of Joseph Paul LIBONATI, a minor.

No. 72-1014.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 9, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 8, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                 5
<CIK>                                     0000027748
<NAME>                                    DEL GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES CORP.
<MULTIPLIER>                              1
<CURRENCY>                                U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         AUG-02-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            AUG-04-1996
<PERIOD-END>                              MAY-03-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                           1.000
<CASH>                                       5,757,769
<SECURITIES>                                   716,015
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,087,331
<ALLOWANCES>                                   231,305
<INVENTORY>                                 25,084,130
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,161,281
<PP&E>                                      15,346,136
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,769,536
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              62,174,101
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,302,768
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       747,182
<OTHER-SE>                                  50,014,381
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                62,174,101
<SALES>                                     39,320,420
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            39,320,420
<CGS>                                       24,009,457
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               24,009,457
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,508,061
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (77,651)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,880,553
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,488,569
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,391,984
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,391,984
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .40
        


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
 

COMMISSIONERS: Jon Leibowitz, Chairman 

Pamela Jones Harbour 

William E. Kovacic 

J. Thomas Rosch 

In the Matter of ) 

) Docket No. 9327 

POLYPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC.,) 

Respondent. ) PUBLIC 

) 

__________________________________ ) 

ORDER 

Chief Administrative Law Judge Chappell has moved, pursuant to former Rule 

3.51(a) of the Commission Rules of Practice, for a 60-day extension within which to file the 

Initial Decision in this case, which would give him until November 20, 2009, to file the 

Initial Decision.1 Upon consideration of the motion, the Commission has determined that, in 

light of the other matters on the Administrative Law Judge’s docket and the voluminous 

record in the above-captioned matter, his request should be granted. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT the Administrative Law Judge’s request for a 60-day 

extension of time be and it hereby is granted. The Administrative Law Judge shall have 

until November 20, 2009, to file the Initial Decision in this case. 

By the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark 

Secretary 

Issued: September 8, 2009 

1 Until January 13, 2009, former Commission Rule 3.51(a) provided that an Initial Decision shall be filed 

“within ninety (90) days after closing the hearing record pursuant to § 3.44(c) . . . or within such further time as the 

Commission may by order allow upon written request from the Administrative Law Judge.” The Complaint in this 

matter was issued last year, and former Commission Rule 3.51(a) consequently applies to this proceeding. Federal 

Trade Commission, Interim Final Rules With Request for Comment, 74 Fed. Reg. 1804 (January 13, 2009); see also 

Federal Trade Commission, Final Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 20205 (May 1, 2009). Pursuant to former Commission Rule 

3.44(c), the hearing record was closed on June 22, 2009, and the ninety-day period will consequently end on 

September 21, 2009. A sixty-day extension will therefore extend the Administrative Law Judge’s time to file an 

Initial Decision until November 20, 2009. 

1
1 Gift cards offered by retailers (such as stores and restaurants) fall under the

Federal Trade Commission’s jurisdiction, while those offered by depository institutions do not. 

The Office of Comptroller of the Currency has issued a guidance on disclosures and marketing

issues for gift cards issued by national banks. See OCC Bulletin 2006-34 (Aug. 14, 2006). 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of the Secretary

August 14, 2007

Mike Clark

State of California

Re: In the Matter of Kmart Corporation, Kmart Services Corporation, and

Kmart Promotions, LLC, corporations

FTC File No. 062 3088 

Dear Mr. Clark:

Thank you for the comments you submitted regarding the above-referenced matter. Your

comments were placed on the public record pursuant to Section 2.34 of the Commission’s Rules

of Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 2.34, and were given serious consideration by the Commission.

The Commission anticipates that this proposed consent order will send a strong message

that retailers1

 must adequately disclose these material conditions when selling gift cards. Indeed,

over the last few years, the Commission staff has observed that many retailers have already

changed their marketing practices. While many retailers eliminated expiration dates or fees

altogether, staff has found generally that disclosures by retailers still imposing fees have

improved. After considering all of the factors that must be weighed in evaluating any settlement,

including the specific facts, consumer injury, and the need to ensure that the remedies deter

similar behavior by other retailers, the Commission concluded that the strong injunctive

provisions and mandatory refund provision provide a positive result for consumers and an

appropriate resolution of this case.

After considering your comments, the Commission has determined that the public

interest would best be served by issuing the Decision and Order in final form without

modification. Respondents will be required to comply with the Order’s injunctive and

reimbursement provisions, and will be subject to potentially large civil penalties if they violate

the Order.
Page 2

Please remember that you may access the Commission’s Consumer Hotline at (202)

326-3569 for updated information about how to receive a refund if your Kmart gift card was

charged dormancy fees. 

Thank you again for your comments. The Commission is aided in its analysis by hearing

from a variety of sources in its work, and it appreciates your interest in this matter.

By direction of the Commission, Commissioners Harbour and Leibowitz concurring in

part and dissenting in part.

Donald S. Clark

Secretary
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7380 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7380

      To cancel the obligation of historically black colleges and 
 universities to repay certain capital financing loans, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 26, 2020

 Ms. Adams (for herself, Ms. Johnson of Texas, Ms. Sewell of Alabama, 
Mr. Cooper, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Carson of Indiana, Ms. Lee 
 of California, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Hastings, Mr. Clay, and Ms. 
   Norton) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To cancel the obligation of historically black colleges and 
 universities to repay certain capital financing loans, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``HBCU Capital Finance Debt Relief 
Act''.

SEC. 2. CANCELLATION OF DEBT UNDER HBCU CAPITAL FINANCING PROGRAM.

    Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary of Education shall cancel the obligation of each eligible 
institution (as defined in section 342 of the Higher Education Act of 
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1066a)) to repay the balance of interest and principal 
due on each loan made under part D of title III of the Higher Education 
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1066 et seq.) before the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EX-10.21



 Exhibit 10.21 

Power of Attorney 
 I, Zhao Lei, with ID
number of 310107196601301213, being a shareholder of 20% of the equity (“My Equity”) of Shanghai Yuanhua Information Technology Co., Ltd., hereby irrevocably authorize Yuanhua Medical Consultancy Services (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. to exercise
the following rights with respect to My Equity within the term of this Power of Attorney: 
 Yuanhua Medical Consultancy Services (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. is
hereby authorized to act on my behalf as my sole exclusive agent and attorney with respect to all matters concerning My Equity, including but not limited to: 1) attending the shareholders’ meetings of Shanghai Yuanhua Information Technology
Co., Ltd.; 2) exercising all the shareholder’s rights and shareholder’s voting right I am entitled to according to law and Articles of Association of Shanghai Yuanhua Information Technology Co., Ltd., including but not limited to the sale
or transfer or pledge or disposition of My Equity in part or in whole; 3) receiving the dividend, bonus and any distribution attributable to the shareholder that I have declared; and 4) designating and appointing, as my authorized representative,
the legal representative (CEO), general manager and other senior management members of Shanghai Yuanhua Information Technology Co., Ltd.. 
 Yuanhua Medical
Consultancy Services (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. shall have the power and authority under this Power of Attorney to execute the Transfer Contract(s) stipulated in Exclusive Option Contract (to which I am required to be a party) on my behalf, and to duly
perform the Equity Pledge Contract and the Exclusive Option Contract to which I am a contracting party, both of which were executed concurrently with this Power of Attorney. The exercise of these powers shall not impose any restrictions on this
Power of Attorney. 
 All the actions conducted by Yuanhua Medical Consultancy Services (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. in relation to My Equity shall be deemed as my
own actions, and all documents executed by Yuanhua Medical Consultancy Services (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. shall be deemed to be executed by myself. I hereby acknowledge those actions and documents. 

Yuanhua Medical Consultancy Services (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. is entitled to assign its rights regarding the aforesaid matters to any other person or entity at
its own discretion and without giving any prior notice to me or obtaining my consent. 
 This Power of Attorney shall be irrevocable and continuously valid
from the date of execution of this Power of Attorney, so long as I am a shareholder of Shanghai Yuanhua Information Technology Co., Ltd. 







 During the term of this Power of Attorney, I hereby waive all the rights associated with My Equity, which have
been entrusted to Yuanhua Medical Consulting Services (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. through this Power of Attorney, and shall not exercise such rights by myself. 
  

			
	Signed by:	 	 /s/ Zhao Lei

		
	Name:	 	 Zhao Lei

		
	Date:	 	July 25, 2013
f8k030414ex10i_yappncorp.htm


Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT


TO THE $500,000 PROMISSORY NOTE DATED NOVEMBER 13, 2013


 


The parties agree that the $500,000 Promissory Note (the "Note") by and between Yappn Corp. (the "Borrower") and JMJ Financial (the "Lender") is hereby amended as follows:


 


1.       Payment. The Lender shall make a payment to the Borrower of $40,000 of Consideration under the Note on or before February 21, 2014.


 


2.       Conversion Price. The sentence in the second paragraph of the Note that begins with "The Conversion Price is the lesser of..." shall be amended and replaced in its entirety by the following sentence: "The Conversion Price is the lesser of $0.10 or 60% of the lowest trade price in the 25 trading days previous to the conversion (In the case that conversion shares are not deliverable by DWAC an additional 10% discount will apply; and if the shares are ineligible for deposit into the DTC system and only eligible for Xclearing deposit an additional 5% discount shall apply; in the case of both an additional cumulative 15% discount shall apply)."


 


3.       No Conversions for 180 days. The first sentence of Section 2 of the Note, which begins with "The Lender has the right, at any time after the Effective Date, at its election...", shall be amended by inserting the words "from 180 days" into the sentence so that the sentence begins as follows: "The Lender has the right, at any time from 180 days after the Effective Date, at its election...."


 


4.       Independent Transactions. The Borrower understands and agrees that the Note sets forth the terms for a series of independent transactions in which the Lender may elect to make a payment of Consideration to the Borrower with each payment of Consideration creating a separate obligation of the Borrower to the Lender with the terms set forth in the Note. Accordingly, the Maturity Date of each payment of Consideration, and the repayment terms for each payment of Consideration, are as set forth in the Note.


 


5.       Nevada. The Borrower acknowledges that the Lender has become a Nevada sole proprietorship. In recognition of this, and because of the cash payment being made to the Borrower pursuant to Section 1 of this Amendment, the Borrower agrees that the first sentence of Section 11 of the Note shall be amended by replacing the word "Florida" with the word "Nevada." The word Florida shall not be replaced in any other place in Section 11. This change to Section 11 shall apply to all actions commenced after the date of this Amendment regardless of whether the event or events that gave rise to the cause of action, including the closing of the Note and any past or future payments of Consideration, occurred before or after the date of this Amendment.


 


ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE NOTE REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.


 


Please indicate acceptance and approval of this amendment dated February 11, 2014 by signing below:


 



	/s/ Craig McCannell	  	
	
Craig McCannell

	  	
JMJ Financial


	
Yappn Corp.

	  	
Its Principal


	
Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Timothy George BALDWIN.

No. 62706.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 21, 1978.

In re: Timothy George Baldwin applying for writs of review and stay order. Parish of Ouachita.

Writ denied. The showing made does not warrant interfering with the orderly proceedings in the trial court. Applicant has an adequate remedy by appeal in the event of conviction.
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


In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Escalon Medical Corp. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015 , as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard J. DePiano, Chief Executive 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, as amended; and

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




Date: September 28, 2015





/s/    Richard J. DePianoRichard J. DePianoChief Executive Officer
No. 10370.

#### Buchwalter, Admr., *v.*Woodard et al.

Decided June 2, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

*Messrs. Robertson & Buchwalter,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Galvin & Galvin; Mr. Otway J. Cos grave; Mr. Ellis G. Kinkead; Mr. W. A. Hicks*and *Mr. W. W. Brown,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, C. J., Si-iauck, Crew, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.