alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.9


 


Haicang District People's Court in Xiamen,
Fujian


Civil Mediation


 


(2015) Hai Min Chu Zi No.1642


 


Plaintiff: Zhangzhou
Fuhua Biomass Energy Technology Co., Ltd. (organization code: 56335818-8), located at Pingzhai Village, Shange Town, Pinghe County,
Zhangzhou City, Fujian Province.


 


Plantiff’s legal
representative: Sanfu Huang, General Manager


 


Plantiff’s entrusted
agent: Guoxing Yan, Director


 


Defendant: Fujian
Zhangzhou Ding Neng Bio-Technology Co., Ltd. (organization code: 79379376-7), located at Pingzhai Village, Shange Town, Pinghe
County, Zhangzhou City, Fujian Province.


 


Defendant’s
legal representative: Xinfeng Nie


 


Defendant’s
entrusted agent: Yilong Yan, Employee


 


In this contract dispute
case between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff requested this Court to terminate the Consulting Services Agreement
and Operating Agreement between both parties. Upon mediation presided over by this Court, both parties voluntarily agreed as follows:


 


		1.	The Consulting Services Agreement, Operating Agreement, Equity Pledge Agreement, Option Agreement,
and Proxy Agreement executed on October 28, 2010 by both parties are hereby terminated on July 14, 2015, and all of the rights
and obligations under such agreements are therefore terminated.
	 	 	 



		2.	This dispute is hereby solved, and there is no other controversy between both parties.
	 	 	 



		3.	The litigation cost for this case is RMB 10,000 and should be paid by the Defendant.
	 	 	 



		4.	This settlement agreement is legally effective once it is signed and confirmed by both parties.



 


This agreement is
in compliance with related laws and regulations, and hence, it is confirmed by this Court.


 


Judge: Yumei Huang


 


July 14, 2015


 


Substitute Clerk: Yaxin Yang
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 11.1
                                  PSINet Inc.
                               and Subsidiaries
 
                  Calculation of Loss per Share (Unaudited) (1)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                                                SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
                                                                                                ------------------
<S>                                                                                             <C>
Weighted average shares outstanding:
Common stock:
  Shares outstanding at beginning of period...................................................         40,395,773
  Weighted average shares issued during the three months 
  ended September 30, 1997 (36,567 shares)....................................................             11,189
                                                                                                ------------------
                                                                                                       40,406,962
                                                                                                ------------------
                                                                                                ------------------
Net loss......................................................................................   $    (10,674,000)
                                                                                                ------------------
                                                                                                ------------------
Loss per share (unaudited)....................................................................   $          (0.26)
                                                                                                ------------------
                                                                                                ------------------
</TABLE>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) For a discussion of loss per share, see Note 2 of the Notes to the
    Consolidated Financial Statements.



                                      24
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Social Security Administration

# AGENCY:

Social Security Administration. 

# ACTION:

Correction Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

                        This notice corrects the notice: Social Security Administration—Statement of Organization, Functions and Delegations of Authority, published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on September 26, 1997 (62 FR 50649).                     

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In the notice document 97-25611, which appeared on pages 50649 and 50650 in the issue of Friday, September 26, 1997, we show two incorrect SAC's for the Office of Publication and Logistics Management in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Finance, Assessment and Management (ODCLCA). This correction notice corrects that mistake. Make the correction as follows: 

On page 50649, in the second column under “Organization”, item D, change the SAC in parentheses from S1SC to S1SH and in item E, change the SAC in parentheses from S1SH to S1SN. 

On page 50649, in the second column under “Functions”, item D, change the SAC in parentheses from S1SC to S1SH. On page 50649, in the third column under “Functions”, item E, change the SAC in parentheses from S1SH to S1SN. 

Dated: November 15, 2000.

Lewis H. Kaiser,

Director, Center for Classification and Organization Management.

[FR Doc. 00-29732 Filed 11-20-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191-02-U
#### BINGHAM v. STATE.

No. 22711.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 12, 1944.

Aubrey Davee, of Brady, for appellant..

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The record is before us without bills of' exception and without statement of fact. The procedure is regular. Nothing is-presented for our consideration.

The judgment of the trial court is. affirmed.
Case 4:22-cr-00141-O Document 10 Filed 04/14/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 16
#### McDONALD v. MERCANTILE NAT. BANK AT DALLAS.

No. 13203.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.

April 24, 1942.

Rehearing Denied June 5, 1942.

O’Connor & Douglass and Robert M. Vaughan, all of Dallas, for appellant.

F. W. Bartlett, Jr., and Malone, Lipscomb, White & Seay, all of Dallas, for appellee.

BOND, Chief Justice.

The sole question in this appeal is one of law, whether an order in a divorce suit, directing the father of a minor child to make periodical payments for the benefit of such child is a debt, enforceable by the divorced wife by writ of garnishment. We think the question is definitely settled by our Supreme Court, in Ex parte Davis, 101 Tex. 607, 111 S.W. 394, 17 L.R.A.,N.S., 1140; Cunningham v. Cunningham et al., 120 Tex. 491, 40 S.W.2d 46, 75 A.L.R. 1305; O’Neil v. O’Neil, Tex.Civ.App., 77 S.W.2d 554; Russell v. Russell, Tex.Civ.App., 79 S.W.2d 639; Ex parte Birkhead, 127 Tex. 556, 95 S.W.2d 953, following in the light of the applicable statute (Art. 4639a, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St.), which, in effect, makes the obligation inheritably imposed upon parents to adequately support their children, a mandatory duty of the divorce court, to order the support of such minors and enforce its decree by contempt proceedings. The statute and authorities leave no room for argument. The statute is so enacted to meet an urgent situation, specially designed in the interest and for the benefit of the minor child, or children, and enforceable only by contempt. The order is not final; it may be altered, changed, or suspended by the court entering the order, as the facts, circumstances, and justice may require. The wife has no pecuniary interest in the award; her interest is merely the promptings of a mother’s filial obedience to the demands of her offsprings that they have necessary support. The order is not enforceable, other than by the means provided by the statute.

Judgment of the court below is affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-08-339-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF E.F., 

A CHILD	

	------------

	FROM THE 233RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

	------------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

	------------

	Appellant Harry Matthew F. attempts to appeal from the trial court’s interlocutory order, which ordered the parties to amend their pleadings.  On August 25, 2008, we sent Harry a letter stating our concern that we may have no jurisdiction over this appeal because the order does not appear to be a final appealable order or judgment, nor does it appear to be an appealable interlocutory order.  See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (Vernon 2008) (listing appealable interlocutory orders); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (providing general rule that an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment).  We indicated that this court would dismiss this appeal if we did not receive a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal by September 4, 2008.  Harry filed a response on September 4, 2008, arguing that the May 28, 2008 order disposed of all issues “other than the enforcement of the arrearage, if any, that [is] owed by Harry.” [Emphasis added.] Because the May 28, 2008 order does not dispose of all issues, it is not a final judgment.

	Accordingly, because the order is neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

								PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and MCCOY, J.

DELIVERED: September 25, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

  <ARTICLE>                   5
<LEGEND>
    THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PHOENIX
    GOLD INTERNATIONAL,  INC.'S FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN ITS QUARTERLY
    REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD  ENDING JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
    ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                                  1

<S>                                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                            SEP-26-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                                 JUN-27-1999
<CASH>                                                             2,600
<SECURITIES>                                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  4,467,743
<ALLOWANCES>                                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                                    5,897,451
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              11,057,591
<PP&E>                                                         6,298,711
<DEPRECIATION>                                                 4,233,841
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                13,890,669
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          3,057,686
<BONDS>                                                                0
<COMMON>                                                       7,182,247
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                                     3,650,736
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  13,890,669
<SALES>                                                       20,320,979
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              20,320,979
<CGS>                                                         14,870,784
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 14,870,784
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               4,165,601
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               116,638
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                1,167,956
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     466,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              701,956
 <DISCONTINUED>                                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                        0
<CHANGES>                                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                                     701,956
<EPS-BASIC>                                                        .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                        .21



</TABLE>
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 580

1 

## ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I No . CV

- 15 -1

TIERRA STEWART and RANDALL STEWART APPELLANT S
V.
ESTATE OF BOBBY NOLAN HERRING APPELLEE Opinion Delivered October 21, 2015
APPEAL FROM THE DREW COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CV

- 2012

- 0058 -4]
HONORABLE DON GLOVER , JUDGE
SUPPLEMENTAL ADDENDUM ORDERED

BRANDON J. HARRISON , Judge Tierra and Randall Stewart appeal a June 2014 circuit court order awarding Bobby Herring’s guardianship estate a $42,355 judgment against Tierra individually and a $9,900 judgment against Tierra and Randall. We do not reach the merits of the Stewarts’ app eal
because of addendum deficiencies

. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4

- 2(a)(8) requires an addendum to contain all documents in the record that “are essential for the appellate court to confirm its jurisdiction, to understand the case, and to decide the issues on appeal.” Specifically, the

r ule requires the appellant to include in the addendum “ any motion to extend the time to file the record on appeal, and any related response, reply, or exhibit” and “any order extending the time to file the record on appeal .” Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4

- 2(a)(8)(A)(i) (201 5 ).Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 580

2 The Stewarts have failed to include the motion and order to extend the time to file the record on appeal in their addendum . Also missing from the addendum are all pleadings
and orders filed in the case , including ones about default judgment

. The appealed June
2014 order expressly considers Plaintiff’s Exhibits 8, 9, 10, and 11, and Defendant’s
Exhibit 13. We therefore need copies in the addendum of all the exhibits the circuit court referenced in its June 2014 order and any of the 35 trial exhibits that are necessary for us to understand and decide the appeal. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4- 2(a)(8)(A)(i)

. W e direct the Stewarts to correct these deficienc ies by filing a supplemental addendum within seven calendar days fro m the date of t his opinion. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4

- 2(b)(4). The list of deficiencies mentioned here is not necessarily an exhaustive one. We
encourage the Stewarts to review our rules before filing a supplemental addendum and

correct any deficiencies or ina ccuracies in addition to those that we have mentioned specifically. Supplemental addendum ordered.
A BRAMSON and B ROWN , JJ., agree. Joseph P. Mazzanti III , for appellants. Hashem Law Firm, PLC , by: Hani W. Hashem , for appellee.
----

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 September 2006 — Meric v OHIM — Arbora & Ausonia (PAM-PIM'S BABY-PROP)

(Case T-133/05) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Earlier national figurative and word marks PAM-PAM - Application for Community word mark PAM-PIM'S BABY-PROP - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2006/C 281/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Gérard Meric (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Murzeau, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Rassat, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Arbora & Ausonia, SL (Barcelona, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 January 2005 in Case R 250/2004-1, regarding the opposition of the proprietor of the national word and figurative marks PAM-PAM to the registration of the word mark PAM-PIM'S BABY-PROP (opposition proceedings No B 505 067).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

----

(1)OJ C 143, 11.6.2005.

----
Case 7:22-cv-00011-M-BP Document 13 Filed 07/25/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 70
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 20, 2010

d1013 

# Order

October 20, 2010

140241(40)

ALESIA HARRIS, Persona l Representative of the Estate of Henry J. Harris, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 140241 COA: 285426 WCAC: 06-000256 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for r econsideration of this Court’s April 16, 2010 order is considered, and it is GRANTE D. We VACATE our order dated April 16, 2010. On reconsideration, th e application for leave to appeal the November 24, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consider ed. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the applicati on or take other peremptory action. MCR 7.302(H)(1). The parties may file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order, but they should not submit mere re statements of their application or reconsideration motion papers.
H. J. Res. 159

One Hundred Third Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three

Joint Resolution

To designate the month of November in 1993 and 1994 as ‘‘National Hospice

Month’’.

Whereas hospice care has been demonstrated to be a humanitarian

way for terminally ill patients to approach the end of their lives

in comfort with appropriate, competent, and compassionate care

in an environment of personal individuality and dignity;

Whereas hospice advocates care for the patient and family by

attending to their physical, emotional, and spiritual needs and

specifically, the pain and grief they experience;

Whereas hospice care is provided by an interdisciplinary team of

physicians, nurses, social workers, pharmacists, psychological and

spiritual counselors, and community volunteers trained in the

hospice concept of care;

Whereas hospice has become a full partner in the Nation’s health

care system;

Whereas the enactment of a permanent medicare hospice benefit

and an optional medicaid hospice benefit makes it possible for

many more Americans to have the opportunity to elect to receive

hospice care;

Whereas private insurance carriers and employers have recognized

the value of hospice care by the inclusion of hospice benefits

in health care coverage packages; and

Whereas there remains a great need to increase public awareness

of the benefits of hospice care: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That the month

of November in 1993 and 1994 is designated as ‘‘National Hospice

Month’’. The President is requested to issue a proclamation calling

upon all government agencies, the health care community, appropriate private organizations, and people of the United States to

observe each of those months with appropriate forums, programs

and activities designed to encourage national recognition of and

support for hospice care as a humane response to the needs of
H. J. Res. 159—2

the terminally ill and as a viable component of the health care

system in this country.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Exhibit 10.8

                                      NOTE

$2,343.25                                        Date: March 10, 2000


     FOR  VALUE  RECEIVED,   Archer  Systems  Limited,   Inc.,  the  undersigned
("Payor"),  hereby  promises  to pay to the order of  Richard J.  Margulies,  an
individual,  ("Holder"), the principal amount of $2,343.25,  payable twenty four
(24) months after the date first set forth above.  The  principal  amount hereof
from time to time  outstanding  shall bear  interest  at the rate of six percent
(6%) per annum,  payable on the date set forth  above.  All  payments  hereunder
shall be in lawful  money of the United  States of America at the address of the
Holder  hereof or at such  address as shall be specified by the Holder to Archer
Systems Limited, Inc.
     If any default shall be made in the payment of interest or principal,  then
the Holder, by written notice to the Payor, may exercise all of its legal rights
to collect  the  balance due unless  within  five (5)  business  days after such
notice the default  shall be cured by Payor.  Such notice  shall be deemed given
three (3) days after having been  deposited in the United  States Mail  properly
addressed  and  sent by  registered  mail to the  particular  addressee,  return
receipt requested.

     Prepayments may be made in this note  voluntarily at any time and from time
to time, without penalty.




                                                 Archer Systems Limited, Inc.


                                                 BY:/s/Walter J. Krzanowski
                                                 --------------------------
                                                       Walter J. Krzanowski
                                                       Secretary/Treasurer



                                        3
Case 3:22-cv-01751-S   Document 32   Filed 11/14/23    Page 1 of 1   PageID 150