alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[No. 15718.

In Bank.

September 14, 1894.]

#### A. W. RANDALL, Appellant, *v.*JULIA DUFF et al., Respondents.

Appeal — Ordek Modifying Judgment. — An order of the trial court modifying a judgment in accordance with the directions of the supreme court made on a prior appeal, and the judgment as modified, are each appeal-able, and appeals taken therefrom will not be dismissed on the ground that they are frivolous.

Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment and order of the Superior Court of Humboldt County.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

*8. M. Buck,*and *W. G. Belcher,*for Appellant.

*W. L. Buff, L. D. McKisiclc,*and *II. S. Foote,*for Respondents.

The Court.

Motion to dismiss the appeal herein on the following grounds:

> “ 1. That the action of the lower court in modifying the judgment or decree in said action, as directed by the supreme court, was a ministerial act only, and one in which the lower court had no jurisdiction, and is not an act or order from which an appeal will lie.

> “ 2. That the judgment or decree rendered in said action on the third day of June, 1892, and modified as directed by the supreme court on the third day of March, 1894, by the superior court, is a final judgment in said *127action, already approved and passed upon by the supreme court as a final determination of said action; and no further appeal lies therefrom.

> “•That the so-called order from which plaintiff has appealed is not an appealable order.”

' When this case was last here on appeal (101 Cal. 82) the judgment of the court below was *“*affirmed in all respects except as to the matter of interest, as to which the judgment was reversed and the cause remanded to the superior court, with direction to amend its decree by allowing interest to the plaintiff down to March 1, 1892, and by reducing the judgment against him correspondingly.”

The present appeal is taken from the order of the court below modifying the judgment as to the matter of interest and from the judgment as modified.

It may be true, as claimed, that the order and judgment appealed from were made and amended, as directed by this court, and that the appeal is frivolous and vexatious, and was taken merely for the purpose of delay; but that is a matter which can only be determined by an examination of the record on appeal, and this we have held will not be done on a motion to dismiss an appeal.

In *People*v. *McNulty,*95 Cal. 595, it was held that to dismiss an appeal “ upon the ground that it is frivolous is to refuse to consider its merits, and, therefore, there can be no dismissal of an appeal on the ground that it is wdthout merit; for to reach this conclusion the merits must be considered and the record must be examined.” To the same effect is *Howell*v. *Howell,*101 Cal. 115;

As the order modifying the judgment, and the judgment as amended, are both appealable, it follows-that’ the motion to dismiss the appeal herein should be denied.

So ordered.

Justice De Haven, being disqualified, did not participate in the foregoing decision.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2997 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2997

   To prohibit a COVID-19 vaccination requirement for eligibility in 
                          nutrition programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 19, 2021

  Mr. Scott of Florida introduced the following bill; which was read 
  twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
                                Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit a COVID-19 vaccination requirement for eligibility in 
                          nutrition programs.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION OF COVID-19 VACCINATION REQUIREMENT FOR 
              ELIGIBILITY IN NUTRITION PROGRAMS.

    (a) Definition of Nutrition Program.--In this section, the term 
``nutrition program'' means--
            (1) the special supplemental nutrition program for women, 
        infants, and children established under section 17 of the Child 
        Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786);
            (2) the supplemental nutrition assistance program 
        established under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 
        2011 et seq.);
            (3) the school breakfast program established under section 
        4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773); and
            (4) the school lunch program established under the Richard 
        B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.).
    (b) Prohibition.--In carrying out a nutrition program, the 
Secretary of Agriculture--
            (1) may not require a person to have received a COVID-19 
        vaccination for eligibility to participate in the nutrition 
        program; and
            (2) shall prohibit a State agency carrying out the 
        nutrition program from requiring a person to have received a 
        COVID-19 vaccination for eligibility to participate in the 
        nutrition program.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.10
 OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
 2009 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN
 NOTICE OF GRANT OF STOCK OPTION
 Exhibit A
 Participant:
    
    [Name]Address:
    
    [Address]
[Address]
  Grant Number:
    
    [Grant No.]Date of Grant:
    
    [Grant Date]Vesting Commencement Date:
    
    [Vest Commence Date]Number of Shares Granted:
    
    [Total Shares]Exercise Price per Share:
    
    $[Per Share Exercise Price]Total Exercise Price:
    
    $[Total Exercise Price]Type of Option:
    
    o Incentive Stock Optiono Nonstatutory Stock OptionTerm/Expiration Date:
    
    [Expiration Date]
 Vesting Schedule
  [Vesting Schedule]
  PARTICIPANT
    
    OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS, INC.Signature
    
    By[Name]
    
    Title
 -1-




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
 TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF STOCK OPTION GRANT
 Grant
  Vesting Schedule
 Administrator Discretion
 Exercise of Option
 Exhibit B
 Method of Payment
     Tax Obligations
 Tax Withholding
 -2-




---



##### 



Notice of Disqualifying Disposition of ISO Shares
 Code Section 409A
 Rights as Stockholder
 No Guarantee of Continued Service
 Termination Period
 Address for Notices
 Grant is Not Transferable
 Binding Agreement
 -3-




---



##### 



Additional Conditions to Issuance of Stock
 Plan Governs
 Administrator Authority
 Electronic Delivery
 Captions
 Agreement Severable
 Modifications to the Agreement
 Amendment, Suspension or Termination of the Plan
 Governing Law
 -4-
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2948 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2948

  To protect the right of individuals to bear arms at water resources 
                         development projects.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 6, 2021

 Mr. Crapo (for himself, Mr. Risch, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Tillis, 
 Mr. Braun, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Rounds, and Ms. 
    Lummis) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To protect the right of individuals to bear arms at water resources 
                         development projects.

    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 ``Recreational Lands Self Defense 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROTECTING THE RIGHT OF INDIVIDUALS TO BEAR ARMS AT WATER 
              RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.

    The Secretary of the Army shall not promulgate or enforce any 
regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm, 
including an assembled or functional firearm, in any area open to the 
public (other than a Federal facility as defined in section 930(g) of 
title 18, United States Code) at a water resources development project 
covered under section 327.0 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations 
(as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act), if--
            (1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from 
        possessing the firearm; and
            (2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the 
        law of the State in which the water resources development 
        project is located.
                                 <all>
```
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 28 

To include the State of Florida in the Gulf of Mexico outer Continental 

Shelf revenue sharing program, to extend the moratorium on oil and 

gas leasing in certain areas of the Gulf of Mexico, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 22, 2021 

Mr. RUBIO (for himself and Mr. SCOTT of Florida) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To include the State of Florida in the Gulf of Mexico outer 

Continental Shelf revenue sharing program, to extend 

the moratorium on oil and gas leasing in certain areas 

of the Gulf of Mexico, 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. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Florida Shores Protec5 tion and Fairness Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 28 IS

1 SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF STATE OF FLORIDA IN GULF OF 

2 MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF REV3 ENUE SHARING PROGRAM. 

4 Section 102 of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security 

5 Act of 2006 (43 U.S.C. 1331 note; Public Law 109–432) 

6 is amended by striking paragraph (7) and inserting the 

7 following: 

8 ‘‘(7) GULF PRODUCING STATE.—The term ‘Gulf 

9 producing State’ means each of the States of Ala10 bama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.’’. 

11 SEC. 3. MORATORIUM ON OIL AND GAS LEASING IN CER12 TAIN AREAS OF GULF OF MEXICO. 

13 Section 104(a) of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security 

14 Act of 2006 (43 U.S.C. 1331 note; Public Law 109–432) 

15 is amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by 

16 striking ‘‘June 30, 2022’’ and inserting ‘‘June 30, 2032’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 4.71



 


Power of Attorney


 


I, Zhengyu Chen, the shareholder of Beijing Star World Technology
Company Limited (“Beijing Star World ”), hold 30% equity interest in Beijing Star World. I, hereby, authorize
Qizhi Software (Beijing) Co., Ltd.(“ Qizhi Software ”) to exercise all the shareholder rights in connection
with my 30% equity interest in Beijing Star World and irrevocably authorize Qizhi Software to exercise the following rights during
the term of this power of attorney:


 


I hereby authorize Qizhi Software, as my attorney-in-fact, to
exercise on my behalf, all the shareholder rights in connection with my 30% equity interest in Beijing Star World in accordance
with laws and the Articles of Association of Beijing Star World, including but not limited to: the right to propose to summon shareholders’
meetings, to receive notice regarding convening and agenda of shareholders’ meetings, to attend shareholders’ meetings
and to exercise the voting rights attached to my 30% equity interest in Beijing Star World at the shareholders’ meeting (including
voting on matters such as designation and appointment of directors, general manager, chief financial operator and other senior
management of Beijing Star World, dividends distribution plan and etc., as my authorized representative on the shareholders’
meeting), sell or transfer my 30% equity interest in Beijing Star World.


 


Qizhi Software is entitled to appoint another individual designated
by its board of directors (or executive directors) to exercise the rights authorized by Beijing Star World under this power of
attorney.


 


Unless the early termination of Business Operation Agreement
jointly executed by Beijing Star World, Qizhi Software, Jianming Dong Zhenyu Xie and I, no matter for whatever reasons, the term
of this power of attorney is ten (10) years upon the signing date of this power of attorney. If this power of attorney is expired,
I shall agree to extend the term of this power of attorney as requested by Qizhi Software.


 


[The remainder of this page intentionally
left blank]






    	 



    	 



    

 


[This is the signature page]


 


 


	Authorizer:	 
	Zhengyu Chen	 
	 	 
	/s/ Zhengyu Chen	 
	Date: December 17, 2009	 
	 	
         

         
	 



 








	Authorizee:	 
	Qizhi Software (Beijing) Co., Ltd.	 




 





	(Chop):	/s/ [Company Stamp of Qizhi Software (Beijing) Co., Ltd.]	 










	Legal Representative/Authorized Representative:	/s/ Hongyi Zhou	 










	Date: December 17, 2009
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7235
WILBERT DONNELL QUICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WAKE COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY/MEDICAL; DOCTOR UMESI; DONNIE HARRISON, Sheriff, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:05-ct-00755-D) Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: January 3, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wilbert Donnell Quick, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Wilbert Donnell Quick appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Quick v. Wake County Detention Facility , No. 5:05-CT-00755-D (E.D.N.C. Apr. 11 & June 30, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Sally Edwards, Chief Financial Officer of DDi Corp. (the “Company”) certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: 

1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31,2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Report. 

 

Date: April 30, 2008
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

STEPHEN DEAN, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 14-56742

D.C. No. 

5:14-cv-01240-VAP-SP

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Virginia A. Phillips, Chief Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 7, 2016

Pasadena, California

Before: PREGERSON, NOONAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Stephen Dean appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for return of

property under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). We have jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

OCT 24 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Under Rule 41(g), a district court may exercise its equitable jurisdiction to

grant a motion for the return of property by a “person aggrieved by an unlawful

search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property.” Fed. R. Crim. P.

41(g). Where, as here, there are no criminal proceedings pending against the

movant, “a district court must exercise caution and restraint before assuming

jurisdiction.” Ramsden v. United States, 2 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1993) (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted). This court reviews a district court’s

decision whether to exercise its equitable jurisdiction under Rule 41(g) for an

abuse of discretion. Id. 

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it

declined to exercise equitable jurisdiction over Dean’s motion. Dean did not

establish that the four Ramsden factors weighed in his favor, as required for the

district court to assume jurisdiction over a pre-indictment Rule 41(g) motion. 

We AFFIRM the district court’s order without prejudice to Dean renewing

his Rule 41(g) motion on the basis that nearly three years have passed since the

government seized the property in question.1

1 Dean’s unopposed request for judicial notice is granted. See Fed. R.

Evid. 201(b)(2).

2
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2867 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2867

  To clarify the rights of Indians and Indian Tribes on Indian lands 
                under the National Labor Relations Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 28, 2021

 Mr. Moran (for himself, Mr. Thune, Mr. Risch, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Hoeven, 
Mr. Crapo, Mr. Lankford, and Mr. Daines) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To clarify the rights of Indians and Indian Tribes on Indian lands 
                under the National Labor Relations Act.

    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 ``Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 
2021''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF EMPLOYER.

    Section 2 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 152) is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or any Indian Tribe, 
        or any enterprise or institution owned and operated by an 
        Indian Tribe and located on its Indian lands,'' after 
        ``subdivision thereof,''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(15) The term `Indian Tribe' means any Indian Tribe, band, 
nation, pueblo, or other organized group or community which is 
recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided 
by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians.
    ``(16) The term `Indian' means any individual who is a member of an 
Indian Tribe.
    ``(17) The term `Indian lands' means--
            ``(A) all lands within the limits of any Indian 
        reservation;
            ``(B) any lands title to which is either held in trust by 
        the United States for the benefit of any Indian Tribe or Indian 
        or held by any Indian Tribe or Indian subject to restriction by 
        the United States against alienation; and
            ``(C) any lands in the State of Oklahoma that are within 
        the boundaries of a former reservation (as defined by the 
        Secretary of the Interior) of a federally recognized Indian 
        Tribe.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

 

SOHU.COM INC. 

 

CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of Sohu.com Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Dr. Charles Zhang, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company, certify, pursuant to U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 of the Company as of September 30, 2003 and results of operations of the Company for the three and ninemonths ended September 30, 2003. 

 

/s/    Dr. Charles Zhang

 

Dr. Charles Zhang, President, Chief 

Executive Officer and Chairman of 

the Board of Directors 

 

November 14, 2003
**Exhibit 4.2**

**WAIVER AND CONSENT**

THIS WAIVER AND CONSENTis entered into this 30th day of June, 2008, by and among Wolverine Asset Management LLC (“WAM”), on its own behalf and on behalfof its affiliates, Wolverine Convertible Arbitrage Fund Trading Ltd. and GPC LX LLC (collectively, “Wolverine”) and Star Energy Corporation (“Star”). 

**WHEREAS,**Wolverine has entered into that certain Securities Purchase Agreement dated as of February 9, 2007 (the “PurchaseAgreement”), by and among Star Energy Corporation (“Star”) and certain purchasers referenced therein (each, a “Purchaser”, collectively, the “Purchasers”), such Purchasers being WAM andEnable Capital Management (each of Star, Wolverine and Enable Capital Management may hereafter be referred to as a “Party”, collectively, the “Parties”); 

**WHEREAS,**pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, the Parties entered into certain related documents, instruments, agreements and notes dated as ofFebruary 9, 2007, among them a Registration Rights Agreement, a Security Agreement, a Subsidiary Guarantee, and an 8% Secured Convertible Debenture (the “Debenture”) issued by Star to each of Wolverine and Enable (collectively,the “Convertible Debt Documents”); 

**WHEREAS,**pursuant to Section 2(a) of the Debenture, July 1, 2008constitutes an Interest Payment Date, whereupon quarterly interest is payable on indebtedness due under the Debenture; 

**WHEREAS,**Star has requested that Wolverine agree to the deferral of interest that would otherwise be due on July 1, 2008, until July 1, 2009; 

**WHEREAS,**Wolverine is willing to agree to a deferral of the aforementioned interest payment on the terms and conditions set forth herein; 

**NOW, THEREFORE,**for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, 

1. Wolverine consents to the following: 

(a) the deferral of the interest payment due onJuly 1, 2008, until July 1, 2009; and 

(b) the waiver by Wolverine of any Late Fees that would otherwise be dueunder Section 2(d) of the Debenture as a result of the non-payment of interest on July 1, 2008. 

2. In consideration of thewaiver and consent of Wolverine referenced in Section 1 above, on July 1, 2009, Star will pay Wolverine a premium of Eight Thousand Dollars ($8,000). 

3. Except as to matters set forth herein, the terms and conditions of all of the Convertible DebtDocuments remain in full force and effect. 

4. This Waiver and Consent is governed by the laws of the State of New York, notwithstandingits conflict of laws rules or any other principles that would trigger the application of any other law. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each ofWolverine and Star has caused this Waiver and Consent to be duly executed on the day and year first written above. 

 
**WOLVERINE ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC**on its own behalf and as Managing Member and Investment Manager of Wolverine Convertible Arbitrage Fund Trading Ltd. and GPC LX LLCBy: /s/ Andrew Sujdak Name: Andrew Sujdak Title: Managing Director**STAR ENERGY CORPORATION**By: /s/ Michael Kravchenko Name: Michael Kravchenko Title: Chief Financial Officer