alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
English Translation of Form of Supplemental Agreements



 Exhibit 10.39 

English Translation 

Supplemental Agreement 
 Party A
(Licensor): Mecox Lane Limited 
 Party B (Licensee): Column A 

Whereas, Party A and Party B have executed an agreement of “LICENCE TO USE TRADE MARK” (hereinafter the “Original Agreement”) on
Column B for the license of the trade mark of Column C (with the registration number of Column D). Now both parties have reached unanimity through consultations and entered into this Supplemental Agreement
as follows: 
  

	1.	Both parties agree to delete Article 12.3 of the original agreement, which provides for the following: “This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of Hong Kong. Both parties hereto agree to submit to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Hong Kong.” The Original Agreement shall be governed by the laws and regulations of the PRC, such as the Contract Law
of the PRC and the Trade Mark Law of the PRC. 

  

	2.	Both parties agree to explain Article 10.1 of the Original Agreement as follows: the provision of “be incapable of assignment” shall mean that Party B shall
not dispose of the registered trademark owned by Party A without permission. However, Party B may sub-license such trademark of Column C to other parties for use without the consent of Party A. 


 

	3.	This Supplemental Agreement shall be an integrate part of the Original Agreement. If there is any conflict between this Supplemental Agreement and the Original
Agreement, this Supplemental Agreement shall prevail. 

  

	4.	This Supplemental Agreement is executed in two originals, and each party shall hold one original. This Supplemental Agreement shall come into effect from the date when
it is sealed by both parties. 

  

									
	 Party A (seal):

Representative (signature):

Date:
	 		 	 Party B (seal):

Representative (signature):

Date:

			
	[seal: Mecox Lane Limited]	 		 	[seal: Column A]









									
	 	  	 Column A
	  	 Column B
	  	Column C	  	Column D
	1.	  	Shanghai Mecox Lane Information Technology Co., Ltd.	  	January 1, 2009	  	



	  	1226877
					
	2.	  	Shanghai Mecox Lane Information Technology Co., Ltd.	  	January 1, 2009	  	



	  	1399243
					
	3.	  	Shanghai Mecox Lane Information Technology Co., Ltd.	  	January 1, 2009	  	



	  	1003821
					
	4.	  	Shanghai Mecox Lane Information Technology Co., Ltd.	  	January 1, 2009	  	



	  	1414200
					
	5.	  	Shanghai Mecox Lane Shopping Co., Ltd.	  	January 1, 2009	  	



	  	1226877
					
	6.	  	Shanghai Mecox Lane Shopping Co., Ltd.	  	January 1, 2009	  	



	  	1399243
					
	7.	  	Shanghai Mecox Lane Shopping Co., Ltd.	  	January 1, 2009	  	



	  	1003821
					
	8.	  	Shanghai Mecox Lane Shopping Co., Ltd.	  	January 1, 2009	  	



	  	1414200
					
	9.	  	Shanghai Mecox Lane Information Technology Co., Ltd.	  	December 1, 2008	  	



	  	1015817
					
	10.	  	Shanghai Mecox Lane Shopping Co., Ltd.	  	December 1, 2008	  	



	  	1015817
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 20, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50259

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DIEGO ROMERO-LUNA, also known as

Rene Cardenas-Gutierrez, also known

as Diego Hernandez-Romero,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-02-CR-1702-ALL-PM

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

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Diego Romero-Luna appeals the sentence imposed following his

conviction of being found in the United States after

deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Romero-Luna

contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define

separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that

resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate

offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in
No. 03-50259

-2-

his indictment. Romero-Luna maintains that he pleaded guilty to

an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year

maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that

offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Romero-Luna acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
<PAGE>   1
                                  Exhibit 21.1


                           K-Tron International, Inc.
                            List of Subsidiaries*


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                            State or Jurisdiction
                           Name of Subsidiary                                 of Incorporation
                           ------------------                                 ----------------
 <S>                                                                             <C>
           K-Tron Investment Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .              Delaware
                      K-Tron America, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . .              Delaware
                      K-Tron Asia Pacific Pte Ltd  . . . . . . . . .              Singapore
                      K-Tron (Switzerland) Ltd.  . . . . . . . . . .             Switzerland
                           K-Tron Deutschland GmbH . . . . . . . . .               Germany
                           K-Tron France S.a.r.l.  . . . . . . . . .               France
                           K-Tron Great Britain Ltd. . . . . . . . .               England
           K-Tron Technologies, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .              Delaware
</TABLE>

--------------
*   Pursuant to applicable Securities and Exchange Commission
regulations, the Registrant has omitted those subsidiaries which, when
considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, would not have been
considered a significant subsidiary as of the end of fiscal year 1995.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 20, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40180 Conference Calendar

ROBERT HADDIX, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus STEPHANIE STEPHENS, Assistant District Attorney; JAY JACKSON, Attorney at Law; JOHN HEATH, JR., Attorney at Law, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 9:03-CV-254

-------------------- Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Robert Haddix, Jr., Texas prisoner # 1175826, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging that the defendants had conspired to deny him a fair and impartial trial. The district court held that Haddix’s claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Haddix has failed to brief the district
court’s Heck determination, and, therefore, that issue is waived and unreviewable. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25No. 04-40180 -2- (5th Cir. 1993). He consequently cannot show the district court’s resolution of his claims to be erroneous. Haddix’s appeal therefore lacks arguable merit and is dismissed as frivolous. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2; Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Haddix is warned that the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). We warn Haddix that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; STRIKE WARNING ISSUED.
#### *Parker v. Pitts.

Wednesday, September 17, 1806.

Forthcoming Bond — Motion on — When it Can Be riade.‡ —A motion on a forthcoming bond can only be made on the day to which the notice is given, unless the defendant be called, and the motion entered and continued.

‡

See monographic *note*on “Statutory Bonds” appended to Goolsby v. Strother, 21 Gratt. 107.

The principal case was cited with approval in Powers v. Carter, etc., Co., 100 Va. 450, 41 S. E. Rep. 869.

*

See generally, monographic *note*on “Attachments” appended to Lancaster v. Wilson, 87 Gratt. 624.

This was a motion for an award of execution upon a forthcoming bond. The notice had been given to a preceding day of the term ; but the motion was not then made ; the defendant was not called ; nor the motion entered and continued.

By the Court. The bar will be pleased to take notice, that although this kind of practice has obtained, by their consent, in this Court, and upon that ground has been sanctioned by the Court of Appeals, yet, should the present Judge sit here at the next term, he will feel it his duty no longer to tolerate a practice in express opposition to a law of the land.
Submitted on record and briefs July 22, 1982,

appeal dismissed July 20, 1983

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*LINDA MAE SLAGLE, *Appellant.*

(81-2438; CA A24052)

667 P2d 1

Zachary A. Zabinsky, Assistant Public Defender, Coquille, filed the brief for appellant.

Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, William F. Gary, Solicitor General, and Richard D. Wasserman, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges.

PER CURIAM.

*2PER CURIAM.

Defendant pled guilty to custodial interference in the second degree and, on December 8,1981, she was sentenced to six months in jail. Execution of the sentence was suspended, and she was placed on probation for 30 months. No appeal was taken from that order. Following a hearing on February 26, 1982, defendant’s probation was revoked, and by order dated March 11,1982, execution of the sentence previously imposed was ordered.

Defendant appeals from a purported order of February 26, 1982, the sole assignment of error being that the sentence imposed was excessive, cruel and unusual. The only order that was entered, which is the one that is attached to the notice of appeal, is the March 11, 1982, order executing the sentence previously imposed. Defendant’s right to challenge the sentence imposed as excessive expired 30 days after the December, 1981, sentencing order was entered, and this court has no authority to consider that question, even though the notice of appeal designates a later order executing that sentence. *State v. Martinez,*35 Or App 381, 581 P2d 955, *rev den*285 Or 73 (1979).

Appeal dismissed.
oxysure_ex1062.htm


EXHIBIT 10.6.2




 


THIRD MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT












WHEREAS, OxySure Systems, Inc. (“OxySure”) and JTR Investments, Ltd. (“JTR”) (OxySure and JTR jointly, the “Parties”) entered into that certain Promissory Note (“Note”) dated 3/1/08 in the principal amount of $250,000; and







WHEREAS, The Parties have agreed that it is in their best interests to modify the terms of the Note.







NOW, WHEREFORE, FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, THE SUFFICIENCY OF WHICH IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:







Section 1 of the Note shall be amended as follows:







Maturity Date. The then outstanding Principal Amount shall become due and payable on the 48 month anniversary of the Issue Date (the “Maturity Date”). “Issue Date” means the later of the date of first issuance of this Note as set forth above or the date of signature hereof.







All other provisions of the Note shall remain unchanged.







Agreed to and accepted:


 



 




	 	 	 	 	 
	By:   /s/Julian T. Ross	 	 	By: /s/Don Reed  	 
	Mr. Julian Ross   	 	 	Mr. Don Reed, 	 
	President, JTR Management, LLC	 	 	Director, and on Behalf of the Board of Directors	 
	General Partner, JTR Investments, Ltd. 	 	 	OxySure Systems, Inc.	 
	Date:  8/30/10	 	 	Date: 8/30/10
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JILL MCKELVY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of 

Social Security, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-35879 

D.C. No. 3:14-cv-05681-RBL 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 24, 2020**

Before: FARRIS, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. 

Jill McKelvy appeals from the district court’s order granting the 

Commissioner of Social Security’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion 

to amend the district court’s original judgment following the Commissioner’s 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 26 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-35879 

denial of her application for disability insurance and supplemental security income 

benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We review for abuse of 

discretion, Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011), and we 

affirm.

The district court initially remanded the action in part for the administrative 

law judge (ALJ) to develop the record, but subsequently granted the 

Commissioner’s Rule 59(e) motion and affirmed the Commissioner’s denial of 

benefits. The district court did not abuse its discretion because the original order

was based on an erroneous reading of the ALJ’s decision. See Herron, 634 F.3d at 

1111 (amending a judgment appropriate where the original judgment rested on 

manifest factual or legal error). Contrary to the district court’s original order, the 

ALJ did not ignore the diagnoses of two examining dermatologists. The district 

court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the original judgment 

improperly shifted McKelvy’s burden of proof to the ALJ, where the record 

contained no evidence of functional limitations related to McKelvy’s delusional 

disorder. See Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 459-60 (9th Cir. 2001) (claimant 

has the burden to prove disability and, where there is a complete lack of evidence, 

the ALJ has no duty to develop the record). 

AFFIRMED.
The law says that employers cannot retaliate against workers for exercising 

their rights to a safe and healthful workplace under the Occupational Safety 

and Health Act. For example, workers have a lawful right to:

• Notify a supervisor or employer about a hazardous condition

• Report a workplace injury or illness

• Refuse to perform an extremely dangerous task where there is 

insufficient time to contact OSHA and the employee has requested 

and been unable to obtain abatement of the hazard 

• Ask OSHA to inspect a workplace

If an employer has retaliated against you, act quickly! Workers must file 

a retaliation complaint with OSHA within 30 days after the alleged 

adverse action occurred or you became aware of it.

www.whistleblowers.gov • 1-800-321-OSHA (6742) • TTY 1-877-889-5627

OSHA 4264-07 2023 | Somali

WORKERS 

HAVE 

RIGHTS!
Sharcigu waxa uu sheegayaa in loo-shaqeeyayaashu aanay ka aargudan karin 

shaqaalaha kuwaas oo adeegsanaaya xuquuqdooda amaanka iyo caafimaadka 

goobta shaqada sida uu tilmaamayo Xeerka Amaanka iyo Caafimaadka 

Shaqada. Tusaale ahaan, shaqaaluhu waxay sharci ahaan xaq u leeyihiin:

• Inay ogeysiiyaan kormeeraha ama loo-shaqeeyaha xaaladaha halista ah

• Inay soo gudbiyaan dhaawacyada ama xanuunada goobta shaqada ka dhasha

• Inay iska diidaan inay qabtaan hawlaha aad halista u ah marka aysan jirin 

waqti kufilan oo shaqaaluhu kula xiriiro OSHA uuna hore u codsaday wax 

ka difaaca qataraha uu sana helin markaa 

• Inay ka codsadaan OSHA inay kormeerto goobta shaqada

Hadii uu loo-shaqeeyahaagu kaa aargutay, si dhaqsa ah uga falceli! 

Shaqaaluhu waa inay u gudbiyaan cabashada aargudashada OSHA mudo 

30 maalmood dugahooda kadib marka falka uu dhaco ama aad ka war 

heshay falkaas.

www.whistleblowers.gov • 1-800-321-OSHA (6742) • TTY 1-877-889-5627

SHAQAALUHU

WAXAY 

LEEYIHIIN 

XAQUUQ!
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,016,975
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,185,328
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 36,675,840
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,019,522
<PP&E>                                       1,106,854
<DEPRECIATION>                                 348,756
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              43,655,763
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       32,085,097
<BONDS>                                      3,764,750
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        38,603
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,767,313
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                43,655,763
<SALES>                                     22,634,142
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            22,831,799
<CGS>                                       19,479,401
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               27,213,442
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,078,443
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,007
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                511,907
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            511,907
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   511,907
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13
        

</TABLE>
Congressional Record UNUM

E PLURIBUS

United States

of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 110th

 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

∑ This ‘‘bullet’’ symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor.

.

S10531 

Vol. 154 WASHINGTON, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2008 No. 173 

House of Representatives 

The House was not in session today. Its next meeting will be held on Saturday, January 3, 2009, at 11 a.m. 

Senate 

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2008 

(Legislative day of Wednesday, September 17, 2008) 

The Senate met at 1 p.m., on the expiration of the recess, and was called to 

order by the Honorable ROBERT P. 

CASEY, Jr., a Senator from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 

f 

APPOINTMENT OF ACTING 

PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will please read a communication 

to the Senate from the President pro 

tempore [Mr. BYRD]. 

The bill clerk read the following letter: 

U.S. SENATE, 

PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE, 

Washington, DC, November 10, 2008. 

To the Senate: 

Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, 

of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby 

appoint the Honorable ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., 

a Senator from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, to perform the duties of the Chair. 

ROBERT C. BYRD, 

President pro tempore. 

Mr. CASEY thereupon assumed the 

chair as Acting President pro tempore. 

f 

RECESS UNTIL 3 P.M., THURSDAY, 

NOVEMBER 13, 2008 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 

Senate stands in recess until 3 p.m., 

Thursday, November 13, 2008, 

Thereupon, the Senate, at 1 and 33 

seconds p.m., recessed until Thursday, 

November 13, 2008, at 3 p.m. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with SENATE
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

I, Michael Gorin, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:



| |  |                         
| |  | ------------------------
| |  | /s/MICHAEL GORIN        
| |  | Name: Michael Gorin     
| |  | Date: September 13, 2004

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Aeroflex Incorporated and will be retained by Aeroflex Incorporated and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 160 (Thursday, October 2, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H10696-H10697]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                         SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED

  By unanimous consent, permission to address the House, following the 
legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was 
granted to:
  (The following Members (at the request of Mr. DeFazio) to revise and 
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
  Ms. Woolsey, for 5 minutes, today.
  Mr. Lynch, for 5 minutes, today.
  Mr. DeFazio, for 5 minutes, today.
  Ms. Kaptur, for 5 minutes, today.
  Mr. Sherman, for 5 minutes, today.
  (The following Members (at the request of Mr. Mica) to revise and 
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
  Mr. Poe, for 5 minutes, today and October 3.

[[Page H10697]]

  Mr. Jones, for 5 minutes, today and October 3.
  Mr. Franks of Arizona, for 5 minutes, today and October 3.
  Mr. Burton of Indiana, for 5 minutes, today and October 3.
  Mr. Moran of Kansas, for 5 minutes, today.
  (The following Member (at his request) to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material:)
  Mr. McHenry, for 5 minutes, today.

                          ____________________
```
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 23




INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation in Amendment No. 3 to Registration Statement No.
33-62779 on Form S-3 of our report dated March 17, 1998 appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Alexander's, Inc. for the year ended December 31,
1997 and our report dated February 6, 1998 appearing in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Kings Plaza Shopping Center and Marina for the year ended December
31, 1997.





Parsippany, New Jersey
March 17, 1998


                                     -59-