alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                 EXHIBIT 10.10

                        ASSIGNMENT OF MEMBERSHIP INTEREST

BY THIS ASSIGNMENT OF MEMBERSHIP INTEREST ("Assignment") made and entered into
as of the 29th day of December 2000, AMORTIBANC MANAGEMENT L.C., a Texas Limited
Liability Company.,("Assignor"), and 1st Realty Investments, Inc., a Nevada For
Profit Corporation, ("Assignee"), agree as follows:

         1. Assignment. For the amount of $135.00 evidenced by a note for that
amount from Assignee in favor of Assignor, together with other necessary and
agreed upon consideration as set forth below, the receipt and sufficiency of
which are hereby acknowledged, Assignor hereby irrevocably sells, transfers and
assigns to Assignee all of its membership interest and participation percentage
in Willow Springs Water L.L.C. Assignee hereby accepts the assignment and
transfer of the Assignors' membership interest in Willow Springs Water L.L.C.,
and agrees to assume any and all obligations and responsibilities associated
with such interest from and after the date of this Assignment and hold Assignors
harmless from any and all liabilities relating thereto.

         2. Further Acts: Additional Documents. Assignors and Assignee shall
perform all such further acts and execute and deliver any and all additional
documents and instruments that may be necessary or desirable to consummate,
evidence or confirm the assignment of the interest described herein.

         3. Counterparts. This Assignment may be executed in counterparts, each
of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall
constitute one and the same instrument.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Assignment has been executed as of the day and
year first above written.

                                        "ASSIGNORS"

                                        AMORTIBANC MANAGEMENT, L.C. a Texas
                                        limited liability company


                                        /s/   Edward W. Dietrich
                                              ------------------
                                        Name  Edward W. Dietrich
                                              ------------------
                                        Title Vice President
                                              --------------

                                        "ASSIGNEE"

                                        1st Realty Investments, Inc. a Nevada
                                        For Profit Corporation

                                        /s/   William Szilagyi
                                              ----------------
                                        Name  William Szilagyi
                                              ----------------
                                        Title President
                                              ---------
#### In re: DOT MD, LLC Debtor. Frank M. Weyer, as assignee of the Judgements of East Coast Internet and Internet.MD, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Morton Levine, Chapter 11 Trustee for the estate of Dot MD, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 04-13367.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Aug. 12, 2005.

*327Frank M. Weyer, Beverly Hills, CA, pro se.

Stephen H. Block, Levine & Block, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, BIRCH and COX, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Frank M. Weyer, a creditor of Dot MD, LLC, appeals the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Morton P. Levine, the bankruptcy trustee. The bankruptcy court determined that Weyer’s judgment lien did not attach to proceeds of a settlement agreement between the Trustee and MoldData. *In re DotMD, LLC,*303 B.R. 519 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.2003). Because the proceeds from MoldData’s agreement with the trustee were not from the sale of assets that Dot MD properly or presently held, but represented a settlement — at least in part — of disputed contractual claims, we conclude that the bankruptcy court did not err in determining that the creditor’s judgment did not attach to the proceeds. *See*O.C.G.A. § 44-12-20; *Prodigy Centers/Atlanta v. T-C Assocs.,*269 Ga. 522, 501 S.E.2d 209, 211 n. 8 (1998).

AFFIRMED.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 15

- 00434

- CV
I N THE INTEREST OF S.L. , a Child From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas Trial Court No. 04

- 0152

- CV Honorable Gary L. Steel, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Jason Pulliam, Justice Delivered and Filed: September 9, 2015
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION Appellant Sally Leeson filed a notice of appeal on July 14 , 2015. Sh e was required to pay $1 9 5.00 in filing fee s to this court

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 5. 1 Appellant did not timely pay the required fee s . Accordingly, when the fee s remained unpaid, on August 14, 2015, this court ordered
A ppellant to provide written proof to this court not later than August 31 , 2015, that the filing fees
ha ve been paid or Appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the filing fees

. See id. We warned Appellant tha t if s he failed to respond as ordered, the appeal could be dismissed. See id. R. 5,

1 See also T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 51.207(b)(1) (filing fee $100.00) (West Supp. 2015); id. §§ 51.0051 , .208 (additional fee $50.00); id. § 51. 851(b) (electronic filing fee $20.00); id. § 51.941(a) (services for indigents fee $25.00) ; Texas Supreme Cour t Order Regarding Fees Charged i n Civil Cases in t he Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation , Misc. Docket No. 07

– 9138 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2007) , reprinted in T EX
. R. A PP
. P. app. A § B.l.(a).04

- 15

- 00434

- CV

- 2

- 42.3; In re W.J.C. , No. 04

- 05

- 00532

- CV, 2005 WL 3477883, at *1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Dec. 21, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.). To date, Appellant has not paid the fees or filed any response with this court

. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b), (c).

PER CURIAM
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0138

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM CURTIS SMALL,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including April 1, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and 

serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 23 2022

02/23/2022

Case Number: DA 20-0138
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2012-0495

Directorate Identifier: 2011NM236AD

200-32-389 --- 10/20/11

MOL G200-MOL-11-0014 --- 11/4/11

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
# C_2020423EN.01003301.xml

| 7.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/33

---

Order of the President of the Court of 5 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln — Germany) — Interseroh Dienstleistungs GmbH v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

(Case C-353/19) (1)

(2020/C 423/48)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 255, 29.7.2019.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Terry Felton, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Quinones, J.), rendered February 1, 1989, convicting him of assault in the second degree and theft of services, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of the crime of assault in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the lineup procedures employed were not unduly suggestive since all of the participants therein bore a sufficient degree of resemblance to the defendant *(see, People v Chalmers,*163 AD2d 528).

The defendant’s remaining contention does not warrant reversal because the alleged error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230). Thompson, J. P., Eiber, Balletta and Ritter, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**IndependentAuditors’ Consent**

 

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-46506, 333-64339,33-59983, and 33-40565 of ProCyte Corporation on Form S-8 of our report datedMarch 25, 2004 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes anexplanatory paragraphs relating to the adoption of Statement of FinancialAccounting Standards No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, therevision of SFAS No. 148 Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation-Transition andDisclosure pro-forma calculation disclosures for the years ended December 31,2002 and 2001), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of ProCyteCorporation for the year ended December 31, 2003.

 

 
| Seattle, Washington |   |
|---------------------|--------|
| March 29, 2004      |   |

 

1

----
**EXHIBIT 31.1**— Certification of Chief Executive Officer
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Clarence W. Peckham, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of SBS Technologies,Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
February 9, 2005    /S/ Clarence W. PeckhamClarence W. Peckham*Chief Executive Officer*
Exhibit 10.2


 





Loan Agreement


 


Lender:
Takung Cultural Development (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. (a company registered in the People’s Republic of China with registered address
at Room 1704-9158, Block A Kuang Shi International Building, Xiangluo Bay, Tianjin Free Trade Area (Central Business District),
China)


 


Borrower:
Xiaohui Wang, Exit-Entry Permit for Travailing to and from Hong Kong and Macau No.: C25469808


 


Guarantor:
Chongqing Wintus (New Star) Enterprises Group (a company registered in the People’s Republic of China, registration No.:
500103000048186) 


 


The three parties
enter into this Agreement after full consultation. 


 


Article 1.
The Borrower borrows RMB24,461,505 (equivalent to US$3,499,500) from the Lender. The loan period shall commence from the date
when the Lender pays the full amount to the Borrower (tentatively January 1, 2016) and end on March 31, 2017. 


 


Article 2.
Upon expiry of the loan period, the Borrower shall repay the above principal to the Lender in a lump sum. The parties can agree
in advance to shorten or extend the loan period. 


 


Article 3. The
Borrower designates the following account as the loan account. The loan is deemed to have been provided to the Borrower once it
is transferred into this designated account by the Lender. The Borrower and the Guarantor warrants that the funds will be legally
transferred and used, and shall be solely responsible for the relevant legal liabilities.


 


Name
of account holder: Chongqing Wintus (New Star) Enterprises Group


 


Account opening
bank: Beipei Sub-branch, Chongqing Branch, China Construction Bank


 


Account
No.: 


 






     


     


    

 


 


Article 4.
The Guarantor shall be jointly responsible for all repayment liabilities of the Lender under this Agreement, including without
limitation to the principal and all costs in relation to collection of debts. 


 


Article 5.
This Agreement has three original copies, each of the Lender, the Borrower and the Guarantor will keep one original copy, which
shall have equal legal effect. 


 


Article 6.
This Agreement shall take effect from January 1, 2017. 


 


 


	
        Lender:

         

        Date: January 4, 2017

         

         

         
	 
	
        Borrower:

         

        Date: January 4, 2017

         
	
        Guarantor:

         

        Date: January 4, 2017
19033

#### Leong v. Azabu USA Corp.

Affirmed
# C_2020068EN.01002501.xml

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/25

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — EX EX (C-140/19 and C-141/19), OK (C-492/19), PL (C-493/19), QM (C-494/19) v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld

(Joined Cases C-140/19, C-141/19 and C-492/19 to C-494/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Freedom to provide services - Posting of workers - Article 56 TFEU - Directive 2014/67/EU - Articles 9 and 20 - Reporting of workers - Retention of records of wages - Penalties - Proportionality - Fines of a predefined minimum amount - Cumulative - No upper limit - Court fees - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2020/C 68/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: EX EX (C-140/19 and C-141/19), OK (C-492/19), PL (C-493/19), QM (C-494/19)

Defendant: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld

Intervener: Finanzpolizei

Operative part of the order

Article 20 of Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System (‘the IMI Regulation’) must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which lays down, in the event of non-compliance with labour law obligations relating to the reporting of workers and the retention of records of wages, the imposition of high fines:

| — | which may not be lower than a predefined amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

which may not be lower than a predefined amount;

| — | which are imposed cumulatively in respect of each worker concerned and without an upper limit, and |
| --- | --- |

—

which are imposed cumulatively in respect of each worker concerned and without an upper limit, and

| — | to which is added a contribution to court costs of 20 % of the amount of the fines if the appeal against the decision imposing those fines is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

—

to which is added a contribution to court costs of 20 % of the amount of the fines if the appeal against the decision imposing those fines is dismissed.

---

(1)  OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.

OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.

---
# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

No. 20

- 60620 Summary Calendar

Jimmy Esau Arteaga,

Petitioner ,

versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent

.

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A074 294 159

Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : * Jimmy Esau Arteaga, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an order of the I mmigration Judge (IJ) denying his application s for cancellation of removal and withholding of removal . He argues that the IJ erred b y finding that he was not credible regarding his assets and income and

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir

. R

. 47.5. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 4, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-60620 Document: 00516596667 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/04/2023No. 20

- 60620

2 by concluding that he had not made the requisite hardship showing. We lack jurisdiction to consider these arguments. Patel v. Garland , 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1621

- 22 , 1627 (2022) ; Castillo

- Gutierrez v. Garland , 43 F.4th 477, 481 (5th Cir. 2022). Arteaga also argues that the IJ misapplied the law by reasoning that his parents could help support Arteaga’s daughters if he is removed to El Salvador because his parents have no legal ob ligation to provide such support. To the extent that Arteaga’s argument implicates a question of law, over which t his court retains jurisdiction , 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) , Arteaga failed to exhaust the issu e before the BIA. W e therefore lack jurisdiction to consider this argument

. S ee Omari v. Holder , 562 F.3d 314, 31 8

- 1 9 (5th Cir. 2009)

. We also lack jurisdiction to consider Arteaga’s unexhausted argument that the IJ misapplied the law for determining a particular social group by using the framework s et forth in In re A

- M

- E & J

- G

- U

- , 241 I & N. Dec. 69, 69 (BIA 2007)

. See Omari , 562 F.3d at 31 8

- 1 9

. Finally, to the extent that Arteaga challenges the denial of his claim under the Convention Against Torture, the BIA concluded that Arteaga waived this claim. Arteaga did not challenge the BIA’s conclusion before the BIA, and so we lack jurisdiction over this claim , too. See Omari , 562 F.3d at 31 8

- 1 9

. Consequently, the petition for review is DISMISSED

. Case: 20-60620 Document: 00516596667 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/04/2023
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Stephen King, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Paño Patsalos, J.), rendered August 7, 1990, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf, People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.
# C_2009069EN.01003105.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/31

---

Order of the President of the Court of 10 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-82/08) (1)

1

(2009/C 69/65)

Language of the case: Greek

Language of the case: Greek

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.

1

---
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

NAHMS Aquaculture Studies

Last Modified: 

Print

NAHMS is currently conducting outreach to cast a wider net to be more

comprehensive in serving the diverse sectors of the aquaculture industry.

If you would like to provide input on future aquaculture studies for your sector,

species, or region, please contact us at nahms@usda.gov.
NAHMS is a nonregulatory program of APHIS Veterinary Services.

NAHMS conducted studies on catfish production and health in 2010, 2003, and

1997. 

See the complete list of all NAHMS studies and related materials

Loading...

Aquaculture Studies
#### Benjamin N. Ross, Appellant, v Richard L. Markham, Respondent.

— Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted, cross motion denied and complaint reinstated. Memorandum: Plaintiff sued defendant for the unauthorized sale of race horses, which plaintiff alleged that he owned. Supreme Court erred in granting defendant summary judgment. There is an issue of fact concerning ownership of the horses in question. Supreme Court also erred in denying plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to allege that the Foal Papers indicate that plaintiff, or his wife as his nominee, owns the horses. Leave to amend shall be freely given (CPLR 3025 [b]; *Fahey v County of Ontario,*44 NY2d 934) and defendant will not suffer surprise or prejudice by the amendment since defendant has possessed the Foal Papers since commencement of the action. There is no support in the record for plaintiff’s request that this case be remanded to a different Trial Judge. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Ricotta, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Green, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.