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

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ No. 1D 20

- 1994

_____________________________ A NTHONY R. B AKER J R , Petitioner ,

v.
S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

— Original Jurisdiction

.

September 23, 2020

P ER C URIAM

. D ISMISSED

. See Logan v. State , 846 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2003).
M AKAR , O STERHAUS , and W INOKUR , JJ., concur
.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
Anthony R. Baker Jr, pro se , Petitioner

.2 Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent

.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-1750

_____________________________

LIDALE R. KELLUM,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

___________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Hentz McClellan, Judge.

April 13, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, WINOKUR, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
2

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0041 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ERIC D. YEATON,

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 November 20 , 20 20 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 14 2020

10/14/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0041
#### June E. WILLEMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steven M. COX, an individual; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-15008.

D.C. No. CV-01-01256-PGR.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 13, 2003.*

Decided Jan. 17, 2003.

Before BEEZER, KLEINFELD, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

June E. Willems appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing her civil rights action for lack of standing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

On appeal, Willems does not challenge the district court’s conclusion that she lacks standing to bring this action because her claims are part of her bankruptcy estate. *See*11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1); *Moneymaker v. CoBen (In re Eisen),*31 F.3d 1447, 1451 n. 2 (9th Cir.1994) (only a representative of the bankruptcy estate has *444standing to prosecute claims of debtor arising out of prepetition events). Her sole contention on appeal is that there were procedural errors in the underlying bankruptcy court proceedings in which she was adjudged bankrupt. This contention fails because bankruptcy court orders are not subject to collateral attack in other courts. *See Celotex Corp. v. Edwards,*514 U.S. 300, 313, 115 S.Ct. 1493, 131 L.Ed.2d 403 (1995).

AFFIRMED.

**

 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.
#### FRACH v. MASS, Sheriff.

No. 9223.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Sept. 22, 1939.

Stanley J. Mitchell and Harry Frazer, both of Oregon City, Or., for appellant.

Fred A. Miller, Dist. Atty., and P. K. Hammond, Deputy Dist, Atty., both of Oregon City, Or., for Clackamas County, Or., for appellee.

*821Before GARRECHT, HANEY, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was indicted by an Oregon grand jury for larceny of automobile tires, inner tubes, wheels, an hydraulic jack, and other miscellaneous automobile tools belonging to the United States under Oregon Code, Ann. 1930, § 14-315 which provides that larceny of property having a value in excess of $35 is a felony. Oregon Code, Ann.1930, § 13-301 provides: “Every person * * * is liable to punishment by the laws of this state for a crime committed by him therein, except where such crime is by law cognizable exclusively in the courts of the United States.”

Appellant was convicted in the state court and sentenced, and rightly, unless the state court was without jurisdiction. The state court was without jurisdiction, if larceny of property belonging to the United States is “cognizable exclusively in the courts of the United States”.

Larceny of property of the United States is made a crime by 18 U.S.C.A. § 82.

18 U.S.C.A. § 547 provides: “Nothing in sections 1 to 553 * * * of this title shall be held to take away or impair the jurisdiction of the courts of the several States under the laws thereof”.

Jurisdiction is conferred on the United States courts by 28 U.S.C.A. § 371, which provides:

“The jurisdiction vested in the courts of the United States in the cases and proceedings hereinafter mentioned, shall be exclusive of the courts of the several States:

“First. Of all crimes and offenses cognizable under the authority -of the United States * * * ”.

Appellant alleged in his petition that he had made a ‘motion in arrest of judgment and stay of execution in the state court and that the legality of his detention had not been previously adjudged upon application for a writ of habeas corpus. The court below denied the petition and this appeal followed.

The above facts require application of the rule that “the appropriate way to raise questions involving the validity of a commitment under a state law is by application to the state courts, and if denied by appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States”. Palmer v. McCauley, 9 Cir., 103 F.2d 300, 301, and cases cited.

Order affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1622 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  2d Session
                                S. 1622

  To amend the independent counsel statute to permit appointees of an 
 independent counsel to receive travel reimbursements for successive 6-
                 month periods after 1 year of service.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 15, 1996

   Mr. Hatch introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the independent counsel statute to permit appointees of an 
 independent counsel to receive travel reimbursements for successive 6-
                 month periods after 1 year of service.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL STATUTE TO PROVIDE 
              CERTAIN TRAVEL EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 594(b)(3)(A) of title 28, United States 
Code, is amended in the second sentence by--
            (1) striking ``by 6 months'' and inserting ``for successive 
        6-month periods''; and
            (2) inserting ``on each occasion'' after ``certifies''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to independent counsels and their appointees effective on or 
after December 31, 1995.
                                 <all>
```
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1634

AN ACT

To amend the resolution establishing the Franklin Delano

Roosevelt Memorial Commission to extend the service

of certain members.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 1634 ES

1 That the first section of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to estab2 lish a commission to formulate plans for a memorial to

3 Franklin Delano Roosevelt’’, approved August 11, 1955

4 (69 Stat. 694) is amended by adding at the end thereof

5 the following: ‘‘A Commissioner who ceases to be a Mem6 ber of the Senate or the House of Representatives may,

7 with the approval of the appointing authority, continue to

8 serve as a Commissioner for a period of up to one year

9 after he or she ceases to be a Member of the Senate or

10 the House of Representatives.’’.

Passed the Senate June 6, 1996.

Attest:

Secretary.
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1634

AN ACT

To amend the resolution establishing the Franklin

tend the service of certain members.Delano Roosevelt Memorial Commission to ex-
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-23-00645-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.Q.C., a Child

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022PA00782

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Associate Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ, JUSTICE RIOS, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order is AFFIRMED. 

Appellant is unable to afford to pay costs of court; no costs are taxed in this appeal. 

SIGNED December 6, 2023.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
##### 



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 The undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his
capacity as an officer of Emmis Communications Corporation (the Company),
that, to his knowledge:  (1)
    
    the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q/A for the period
ended May 31, 2003, 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 such report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company. Date: May 14, 2004 /s/
    
    WALTER Z. BERGERWalter Z. BergerExecutive Vice President, Treasurer and ChiefFinancial Officer
 -9-
Amendment No. 7 to 2006 Stock Plan



 Exhibit 10.3.8 
 AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO THE 
 SYNACOR, INC. 

2006 STOCK PLAN 
 Synacor, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), adopted the 2006 Stock Plan on December 5, 2006, as amended on July 31, 2007, September 14, 2007, April 30, 2008, July 28, 2008, May
12, 2010 and August 16, 2011 (the “Plan”). Unless otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms shall have the meaning set forth in the Plan. 
 Section 4(a) of the Plan shall be amended in its entirety to read as follows: 

“(a) Basic Limitation. Not more than 7,798,211 Shares may be issued under the Plan (subject to Subsection (b) below and
Section 8). All of these Shares may be issued upon the exercise of ISOs. The number of Shares that are subject to Options or other rights outstanding at any time under the Plan shall not exceed the number of Shares that then remain available for
issuance under the Plan. The Company, during the term of the Plan, shall at all times reserve and keep available sufficient Shares to satisfy the requirements of the Plan. Shares offered under the Plan may be authorized but unissued Shares or
treasury Shares.” 
 Except as expressly amended hereby, the Plan shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect and
is hereby ratified and confirmed. 
  

			
	 Adopted by the Company’s Compensation Committee of the Board:
	  	January 6, 2012
		
	 Adopted by the Company’s Stockholders:
1 Subject: FW: question re: Eur Resp J 2012 paper -for NOx docket Attachments: Two pollutants.xlsx

From: Pedro Martins [ mailto:pmartinsalergo@gmail.com ] Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 5:48 PM To: Patel, Molini Subject: Re: question re: Eur Resp J 2012 paper



### Dear Prof. Molini Patel, Thank you for your e-mail. I've prepared a file with the information you requested. I hope you find it useful. If you need further information, please let me know. Best regards, Pedro Martins

- 

### Pedro Martins, MD, PhD Immunoallergy Department, Dona Estefânia Hosp ital, Central Lisbon Hospital EPE, Portugal CEDOC - Chronic Diseases Research Center, Pat hophysiology Department, Nova Medical School, New University of Lisbon, Portugal

On 27 June 2013 17:38, Patel, Molini < Patel.Molini@epa.gov > wrote:

Dear Dr. Martins,

Our office is currently developing th e Integrated Science Assessment for Nitrogen Oxides and reviewing your 2012 paper in the European Respiratory Journal, “Air ways changes related to air pollution exposure in wheezing children.” We are interested in the two-polluta nt modeling results you reported in the supplementary material (Figures 1s and 2s) and hope that you would share with us the quantitative re sults (effect estimates and 95% CIs) for FEV1 and pH for NO2, PM10, benzene, and ethylbenzene. Thank you!

Best regards,

Molini M. Patel, PhD, MPH Epidemiologist U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Center for Environmental Assessment Mailcode: B243-01 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone: 919.541.1492 , Fax: 919.541.1818 , Email: patel.molini@epa.govTwo pollutants.xlsx 

# FEV1 PM10 (single) PM10 (+NO2) PM10 (+Benzene) PM10 (+Ethilbenzene) Regression coefficient (CI 95%) -1.64(-3.2 to -0.1) 0.47(-4.36 to 5.3) 0.46(-2.49 to 1.58) -1.4(-3.6 to 0.79)

NO2 (single) NO2 (+PM10) NO2 (+Benzene) NO2 (+Ethilbenzene) Regression coefficient (CI 95%) -11.87(-6.31 to -0.76) -25.6(-8.18 to 9.21) -8.65(-0.97 to 6.7) -13.21(-4.83 to 3.56)

Benzene (single) Benzene (+PM10) Benzene (+NO2) Benzene (+Ethilbenzene) Regression coefficient (CI 95%) -4.33(-7.13 to -1.53) -3.76(-7.37 to -0.15) -3.98(-7.71 to -0.23) -4.22(-7.83 to -0.61)

Ethilbenzene (single) Ethilbenzene (+PM10) Ethilbenzene (+NO2) Ethilbenzene (+Benzene) Regression coefficient (CI 95%) -1.79(-3.32 to -0.25) -0.6 (-2.67 to 1.48) -0.61 (-2.78 to 1.56) -0.06 (-1.99 to 1.86)


## pH PM10 (single) PM10 (+NO2) PM10 (+Benzene) PM10 (+Ethilbenzene) Regression coefficient (CI 95%) -0.21 (-0.3 to 0.12) -0.23 (-0.48 to 0.01) -0.14 (-0.27 to -0.01) -0.14 (-0.28 to 0.003)

NO2 (single) NO2 (+PM10) NO2 (+Benzene) NO2 (+Ethilbenzene) Regression coefficient (CI 95%) -0.69 (-1.04 to -0.35) 0.08 (-0.8 to 0.97) -0.44 (-0.95 to 0.06) -042(-0.97 to 0.12)

Benzene (single) Benzene (+PM10) Benzene (+NO2) Benzene (+Ethilbenzene) Regression coefficient (CI 95%) -0.24 (-0.42 to -0.06) -0.08 (-0.32 to 0.15) -0.1 (-0.34 to 0.14) -0.09 (-0.22 to 0.04)

Ethilbenzene (single) Ethilbenzene (+PM10) Ethilbenzene (+NO2) Ethilbenzene (+Benzene) Regression coefficient (CI 95%) -0.14 (-0.23 to -0.04) -0.04 (-0.18 to 0.09) -0.06 (-0.20 to 0.09) -0.13 (-0.37 to 0.10)
**EXHIBIT 10.27**

 

**PRENTISS PROPERTIES ACQUISITION PARTNERS, L.P.**

 

**Seventh Amendment to the Third Amended and Restated Agreement**

**(as amended, the “Agreement”) of Limited Partnership of Prentiss Properties**

**AcquisitionPartners, L.P. (the “Partnership”)**

 

**RECITALS**

 

A. Brandywine Operating Partnership, L.P., a Delawarelimited partnership (“Brandywine”), has agreed to sell to the Partnership 200,000 7.5% Series E Cumulative Preferred Units of the Partnership pursuant to that certain Unit Repurchase Agreement (the “Repurchase Agreement”) datedas of February 4, 2004 among the Partnership and Brandywine. 

 

Prentiss Properties I, Inc. as the sole general partner of the Partnership (the “General Partner”) and Brandywine desire to amend the Agreement as herein set forth; terms being used herein as defined in the Agreement. 

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the General Partner hereby adopts the following amendmentto the Agreement. 

 

1. Upon the Closing (as defined in theRepurchase Agreement), Section 4.02(g) of the Agreement and all references in the Agreement to the Series E Preferred Units and Series E Preferred Shares are deemed deleted therefrom. 

 

[Signature Page Follows] 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the General Partner, and Brandywine have executed this Seventh Amendment as ofFebruary 4, 2004. 

 

PRENTISS PROPERTIES I, INC.

By:
 
/s/ Michael A. Ernst
  
Name: Michael A. Ernst
  
Title: Executive Vice President Chief Financial Officer

 

2 

BRANDYWINE OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P.

By:
 
Brandywine Realty Trust,

its generalpartner

By:
 
/s/ Christopher P. Marr
  Name: Christopher P. Marr  Title: CFO
 

3
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1475

To provide an antitrust exemption for persons engaged in the fishing industry,

and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

DECEMBER 13, 1995

Mr. STEVENS (for himself and Mr. MURKOWSKI) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide an antitrust exemption for persons engaged in

the fishing industry, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

4 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the

5 ‘‘Fishing Industry Bargaining Act’’.

6 (b) AMENDMENT TO ACT OF 1934.—The Act ap7 proved June 25, 1934, authorizing associations of produc8 ers of aquatic products (15 U.S.C. 1521 et seq.) is amend9 ed by inserting after section 2 the following new section:
2

S 1475 IS

1 ‘‘SEC. 3. Persons engaged in the fishing industry as

2 fishermen, including fishermen acting through associa3 tions allowed under section 1, may collectively agree with

4 fish processors, including fish processors acting through

5 associations of processors, on (1) the price paid to the

6 fishermen for aquatic products, and (2) the minimum

7 price that fish processors will accept for the sale of proc8 essed aquatic products. Nothing in this section shall be

9 construed to allow fish processors to agree among them10 selves on the price paid to fishermen or the minimum price

11 that fish processors will accept for sale of processed aquat12 ic products if fishermen did not participate in the making

13 of the agreement and are not a party to the agreement.

Æ
##### 



Exhibit
    32.2
  CERTIFICATION
    OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF
    DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC.
  Form 10-K Form 10-K)
  Form 10-K
  Form 10-K
  Joseph
    S. Tesoriero
   Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of 1stConstitution Bancorp (the Company) for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (section) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (section) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge: (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. ROBERT F. MANGANOName:
Robert F. ManganoTitle:
President and Chief Executive OfficerDate:
August 8, 2005  JOSEPH M. REARDONName:
Joseph M. ReardonTitle:
Senior Vice President andTreasurerDate:
August 8, 2005
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  Date: November 8, 2007
    
    /s/ Robert J. Phillippy

Robert J. PhillippyPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4946 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

1075 North Tustin Street in Orange, California, as the ‘‘Specialist 

Trevor A. Win’E Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2018 

Mr. CORREA (for himself, Mr. COOK, Mr. DESAULNIER, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, 

Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. LAMALFA, Mr. CA ́RDENAS, Mr. SWALWELL of California, Mr. PETERS, Mr. ISSA, Ms. BROWNLEY of California, Mr. 

LOWENTHAL, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. CARBAJAL, Mr. THOMPSON of 

California, Mr. HUFFMAN, Ms. LOFGREN, Mr. TAKANO, Mr. MCNERNEY, 

Mr. VARGAS, Mrs. MIMI WALTERS of California, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. 

ROYCE of California, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. VALADAO, Mr. CALVERT, 

Ms. SA ́NCHEZ, Mrs. TORRES, Mr. GOMEZ, Mr. COSTA, Ms. BASS, Mr. 

KNIGHT, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Mr. PANETTA, Mr. KHANNA, Mr. 

TED LIEU of California, Ms. BARRAGA ́N, Ms. JUDY CHU of California, 

Ms. MATSUI, Mr. AGUILAR, Mr. BERA, Mr. DENHAM, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. 

GARAMENDI, Mr. HUNTER, Ms. LEE, Mr. NUNES, Mr. RUIZ, Mr. SHERMAN, Ms. SPEIER, and Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1075 North Tustin Street in Orange, California, as the ‘‘Specialist Trevor A. Win’E Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4946 IH

1 SECTION 1. SPECIALIST TREVOR A. WIN’E POST OFFICE. 

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

3 Postal Service located at 1075 North Tustin Street in Or4 ange, California, shall be known and designated as the 

5 ‘‘Specialist Trevor A. Win’E Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Specialist Trevor A. 

10 Win’E Post Office’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
f10k2010a1ex10xxi_chinayida.htm



Exhibit 10.21







Anhui Province Bengbu City Emperor Ming Taizu Cultural


and Ecological Resort and Tourism Project Investment Agreement







Party A: Anhui Province Bengbu City Government


Party B:  Yida (Fujian) Tourism Group Co., Ltd.; and


Anhui Xingguang Investment Group Ltd.







Project:


Emperor Ming Taizu Cultural and Ecological Resort and Tourism Project, including recreational developments of Royal Hot Spring World, Royal Tour Town, Filial Piety Temple and Royal Hunting Garden.







Investment and Area:


Party B will form a limited liability company, with a total registered capital of 100,000,000 RMB to engage in construction and development.







The Ming Dynasty Entertainment World will be built on approximately 5,000 Mu of land.







Land Use Rights:


Refer to State-owned Land Use Rights Agreement.







Jurisdiction:


Law of China







Dispute:


If there is any dispute between the parties, both parties shall resolve the dispute through compromise settlement. If the parties cannot reach the settlement, then either party can resolve the dispute by the courts of Hefei City.







Date of the Agreement:


April 15, 2010


 


 

1