alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.30

                               AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO

                           NISHIKAWA STANDARD COMPANY

                              PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT



         THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE NISHIKAWA STANDARD COMPANY PARTNERSHIP
AGREEMENT ("Amendment No. 1 to the Partnership Agreement") is made and entered
into effective as of the 1st day of November, 1990, by and between NISHIKAWA OF
AMERICA INC. ("Nishikawa"), a Delaware corporation and a subsidiary of Nishikawa
Rubber Co., Ltd., a Japanese corporation, and NISCO HOLDING COMPANY
("Standard"), a Delaware corporation and a subsidiary of The Standard Products
Company, an Ohio corporation.

                                   WITNESSETH:

         WHEREAS, Nishikawa and Standard entered into a Partnership Agreement
effective as of March 23, 1989 (the "Partnership Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS, Nishikawa and Standard desire to amend the Partnership
Agreement as hereinafter provided.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained
herein and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties agree as follows:

         SECTION 1. Section 3.1 of the Partnership Agreement is hereby deleted
in its entirety and there is substituted in its place the following:

         "Section 3.1 Capital Contributions.

         (a) The Partners have contributed to the capital of the Partnership
cash in the aggregate amount of $28,500,000 as follows:

              (i) Nishikawa has contributed to the capital of the Partnership
    cash in the aggregate amount of $17,100,000, consisting of $15,000,000
    contributed upon formation of the Partnership and $2,100,000 contributed on
    the effective date of Amendment No. 1 to the Partnership Agreement; and



              (ii) Standard has contributed to the capital of the Partnership
    cash in the aggregate amount of $11,400,000, consisting of $10,000,000
    contributed upon formation of the Partnership and $1,400,000 contributed on
    the effective date of Amendment No. 1 to the Partnership Agreement.

         (b) The Policy Committee is authorized to increase the aggregate
capitalization of the Partnership up to $30,000,000 as the Policy Committee
deems appropriate, with any such additional capital contributions to be made 60%
by Nishikawa and 40% by Standard."


         SECTION 2. There is hereby added to the Partnership Agreement the
following new Section 3.4:

         "Section 3.4 Excess Capital. In the event that the Partnership
determines that the capital of the Partnership is in excess of the amount
required, such excess capital shall be distributed 60% to Nishikawa and 40% to
Standard. The Partnership shall make such determination of excess capital only
upon the mutual agreement of the Partners. Such excess capital shall be
distributed within 30 days after the Partnership determines it has excess
capital."


                                        2
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-129270, 333-121495, 333-110011, 333-104397, 333-64268,333-39276, 333-62601, 333-24407, 333-10115, 333-09157 on Form S-8 of our report dated March 23, 2006, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of NetManage, Inc., appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K ofNetManage, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005. 

 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

 

San Jose, California 

March 23, 2006
Consent of Independent Accountants

The Board of Directors
Henry's Marketplace, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form
S-3 (No. 333-31292, No. 333-88011, No. 333-62175, and No. 333-52747) and in the
registration statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-66347 and No. 333-20539) of Wild
Oats Markets, Inc. of our report dated February 5, 1999 with respect to the
balance sheet of Henry's Marketplace, Inc. as of December 27, 1998, and the
related statements of earnings, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the
fifty-two weeks then ended, which report appears in the January 1, 2000, annual
report on Form 10-K of Wild Oats Markets, Inc.

                                    KPMG LLP

San Diego, California
March 27, 2000
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

                             CERTIFICATE 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 of Belden Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K
for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, C. Baker Cunningham, Chairman
of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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.

/s/ C. Baker Cunningham
--------------------------
C. Baker Cunningham
Chairman of the Board, President
 and Chief Executive Officer
March 4, 2004
**Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 February 2009 – Mechel Nemunas v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos
finansų ministerijos**

**(Case C‐119/08)**

First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – First VAT Directive – Sixth VAT Directive – Article 33(1) – Concept of ‘turnover taxes’ – Tax calculated on the basis of an undertaking’s turnover to finance the maintenance and development programme for national
roads

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Prohibition on the levying of other domestic taxes which can be characterised as turnover taxes (Council Directive 77/388,
Art. 33(1)) (see paras 34-38, operative part)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Reference for a preliminary ruling – Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas – Interpretation of First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 14) and of Article 33 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 45, p. 1) – Lithuanian road tax calculated on the basis of an undertaking’s turnover to finance the maintenance and development programme for national roads. |

**Operative part**

Article 33 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC
of 16 December 1991, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a tax such as the levy on revenue laid down
by the Lithuanian Law on the financing of the road maintenance and development programme (Lietuvos Respublikos kelių priežiūros
ir plėtros programos finansavimo įstatymas).
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 March 13, 2019 s0312

Order 

Clerk

March 13, 2019

159222 & (14)(15)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 159222

COA: 345822

Wayne CC: 18-001527-AR

DAJON DEON HOGAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the February 21, 2019 order of the Court of Appeals is 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented 

should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to stay enforcement of the Court of 

Appeals order is DENIED.

VIVIANO, J., did not participate due to a familial relationship with the presiding 

circuit court judge in this case.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 14, 2012 

jam 

Order 

 

June 14, 2012 

145276 (16) 

ROBERT KENNETH BURKOWSKI, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 145276 

 COA: 309033 

ANDREW LEONE, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

___________________________________ 

 On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it 

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be 

liable for filing fees. 

 Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the 

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $89.00, shall submit a copy of this order 

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned 

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being 

filed in this Court. 

 If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly 

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of 

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of 

$286.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court. 

 Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in this 

Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. 

 The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and 

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4763 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4763

     To require the pursuit of technologies to remove space debris.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 10, 2018

   Ms. Meng introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To require the pursuit of technologies to remove space debris.

    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 ``Space Debris Removal Act''.

SEC. 2. ORBITAL DEBRIS REMOVAL TECHNOLOGIES.

    Section 31501 of title 51, United States Code, is amended to read 
as follows:
``Sec. 31501. Orbital debris
    ``The Administrator, in conjunction with the heads of other Federal 
agencies, shall take steps to develop or acquire technologies and 
policies that will enable the Administration to decrease the risks 
associated with and remove orbital debris.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 121 (Tuesday, September 11, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5785]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              {time}  1400
                              AFTER RECESS

  The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the 
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Westmoreland) at 2 p.m.

                          ____________________
```
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to
the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,
or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are 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 involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  By:
    
    /s/ JOHN E. JACKSONName:
    
    John E. JacksonTitle:
    
    Chief Executive Officer andPresident(Principal Executive Officer)
Abstract Article References Cited By View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF(209K)

Keywords: Benefit transfer; Environmental economics; Literature synthesis; Non-market valuation

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF(209K)

like this article

Robert J. Johnston Randall S. Rosenberger All Authors Find more content: Find more content written by: Robert J. Johnston 1 , Randall S. Rosenberger2 Article first published online: 28 OCT 2009 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6419.2009.00592.x © 2009 Blackw ell Publishing Ltd Issue Journal of Economic Surveys Volume 24, Issue 3 , pages 479–510 , July 2010

How to Cite Author Information Publication History Additional Information (Show All) 

### METHODS, TRENDS AND CONTROVERSIES IN CONTEMPORARY BENEFIT TRANSFER

Abstract Benefit transfer uses research results from pre-existing primary research to predict welfare estimates for other sites of policy significance for which primary valuation estimates are unavailable. Despite the sizable literature and the ubiquity of benefit transfer in policy analysis, the method remains subject to controversy. There is also a divergence between transfer practices recommended by the scholarly literature and those commonly applied within policy analysis. The size, complexity and relative disorganization of the literature may represent an obstacle to the use of updated methods by practitioners. Recognizing the importance of benefit transfer for policymaking and the breadth of associated scholarly work, this paper reviews and synthesizes the benefit transfer literature. It highlights methods, trends and controversies in contemporary research, identifies issues and challenges facing benefit transfer practitioners and summarizes research contributions. Several areas of future research on benefit transfers naturally emerge.

More content like this 

## 3/11/2011 METHODS, TRENDS AND CONTROVER...

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/.../abstract 1/1
# C_2009113EN.01004405.xml

| 16.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/44

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 24 March 2009 — Intel v Commission

(Case T-457/08) (1)

1

2009/C 113/92

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.

1

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 124 (Friday, September 14, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H6061]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

            By Mr. FORTENBERRY:
        H.R. 6416.
        Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       The constitutional authority for this bill is pursuant to 
     Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the United States 
     Constitution.
```
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.1

                   SUBSIDIARIES OF DETROIT DIESEL CORPORATION
                                (AS OF 12/31/97)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                               JURISDICTION OF
                                                                INCORPORATION/ 
SUBSIDIARY NAME                                                   FORMATION
                                                             
<S>                                                            <C>
Outer Drive Holdings, Inc.                                         Delaware
       BYC Acquisition Corp.                                       Delaware
       Florida Detroit Diesel-Allison, Inc.                        Delaware
       Hawaii Detroit Diesel-Allison, Inc.                         Delaware
       Outer Drive Holdings-North, Inc.                            Delaware
DAVCO-DDC, Inc.                                                    Delaware
Detroit Diesel Realty, Inc.                                        Michigan
Detroit Diesel Credit Corporation                                  Delaware
DDR-Holdings Corporation                                           Delaware
       Detroit Diesel Remanufacturing Corporation                  Delaware
               Detroit Diesel Remanufacturing-Central, Inc.        Delaware
               Detroit Diesel Remanufacturing-East, Inc.           Delaware
               Detroit Diesel Remanufacturing-West, Inc.           Delaware
Detroit Diesel Export Corporation                                  Barbados
Detroit Diesel of Canada, Ltd.                                     Delaware
VM Holdings, Inc.                                                  Delaware
       VM Motori, S.p.A.                                           Italy
       Detroit Diesel Motores do Brasil, Ltda.                     Brazil
Detroit Diesel Overseas Distribution Corporation                   Delaware
Detroit Diesel (Suisse) AG SA                                      Switzerland
Detroit Diesel Overseas Corporation                                Delaware
        Mexico Detroit Diesel Allison Corporation                  Texas
        Detroit Diesel-Allison de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.             Mexico
        Detroit Diesel Distribution Center, B.V.                   The Netherlands
        Detroit Diesel Asia Pte. Ltd.                              Singapore
</TABLE>


                                      65
**EXHIBIT 21**

**SUBSIDIARIES OFULTRATECH, INC.**

The following is a list ofUltratech, Inc.’s subsidiaries including their jurisdiction ofincorporation as of December 31, 2003:
| **Subsidiaries**                                                                                                                                     | ** ** | ** **             | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of incorporation** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|------------------------|------------|---------------------------------------------|
| Ultratech CH                                                                                                                                         |       | Korea                  |
| Ultratech International, Inc.                                                                                                                   |       | State of Delaware, USA |
| Ultratech UK  Limited                                                                                                                                |       | United Kingdom         |
| Ultratech  Kabushiki Kaisha                                                                                                                          |       | Japan                  |
| Ultratech Stepper East, Inc. (formerly UTS  Acquisition Sub, Inc., Ultratech Capital, Inc. and Ultratech  Stepper Capital, Inc.) |       | State of Delaware, USA |
| Ultratech Stepper  (Thailand) Co. LTD.                                                                                                               |       | Thailand               |
| Ultratech  (Singapore) Pte, Ltd.                                                                                                                     |       | Singapore              |
| Ultratech  Corporation                                                                                                                               |       | State of Nevada, USA   |

 

 

----
#### MARTINUS DeRIDDER, COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT, v. ANNA F. DeRIDDER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Argued November *8, 1948*

Decided November 22, 1948.

*117
      *Mr. John B. Zabriskie*argued the cause for complainant-respondent.

*Mr. Leo Rosenbhttn*argued the cause for defendant-appellant *(Mr. Sebastian Gaeta*on the brief).

The opinion of the court was delivered

Per Curiam.

It is contended there was error below because the court failed to take cognizance of the legal presumption of a gift as the transactions were between husband and wife.

The parties were married after a short acquaintance following a chance meeting in a tavern. The respondent, the husband, and his fourteen-year-old son moved into the wife’s home. Before the marriage he advanced to her $1200 and after the marriage made further advances in the amount of $2,000.

The husband testified these were financial loans which the wife agreed to repay, while she says they were gifts.

There was testimony that shortly after the ceremony the appellant started abusing the son and there was considerable friction. She stopped providing meals and ordered the boy to leave the house and thereafter the respondent was given his personal effects and told not to come back.

We have made an independent appraisal and determination of the evidence in the light of the presumption of a gift as to those transactions between husband and wife. Our conclusion is the same as that of the Vice Chancellor below, to wit, that the moneys advanced were loans and that the wife should repay them to the husband.

The decree below is therefore affirmed.

*For affirmance:*Chief Justice Vanderbilt, and Justices Case, Heher, Wacheneeld, Burling and Ackerson—6.

*For reversal:*None.