alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-4.20



 Exhibit 4.20 

Lease Contract Supplemental Agreement 
 This Lease Contract Supplemental Agreement (the “Supplemental Agreement”) was signed on December     , 2012 by and between: 

Lessor: Daqo New Material Co., Ltd. 

Address: Chongqing Wanzhou Industrial Park 

Legal representative: Xu Guangfu 
 Lessee: Chongqing Daqo New Energy Co., Ltd. 
 Address: Chongqing
Wanzhou Industrial Park 
 Legal representative: Xu Guangfu 

Whereas, the lessor and the lessee signed a Lease Contract on January 10, 2012; 
 Whereas, since the fourth quarter of 2012, due to changes in the market environment, the object of the lease has been unable to generate revenues and profits, and the lessee has temporarily suspended
production in Wanzhou Industrial Park. The lessee will carry out technological alterations to the existing facilities, and the lessee expects the technological alterations to be completed in June 2013 and the production to be resumed; 

Now through friendly consultations on an equal footing, in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations of the People’s Republic of China, the
parties have agreed to supplement and amend the Lease Contract as follows: 
  

	1.	The lessor hereby agrees to waive the rents of the fourth quarter of 2012 and the first quarter of 2013. The lessor further agrees that the rent will temporarily be
charged on the basis of 10,000 Renminbi per month. The foregoing rent will remain in effect until the lessee resumes production and the parties determine the new amount of the lease payment according to the actual market situation at that time.


  

	2.	If the lessor experiences a working capital shortage before the lessee resumes production and the parties re-establish the amount of the lease payment, the lessee
promises to provide to the lessor funds as a prepayment for future rent, with the total amount of funds not exceeding the total rent the lessor should have received according to the original Lease Contract from October 1, 2012 to the date of
payment. 

  

	3.	When the lessee starts generating profit once the market improves, the lessee will, according to the manner and amount agreed upon between the parties, give full
compensation to the lessor for the previously reduced rent. 

  

	4.	This Supplemental Agreement is in immediate effect from the date of signing. Except for the changes and additions that the foregoing made to Article IV (“Rent and
Payment”) of the original Lease Contract, the remaining provisions are unchanged. For the period of the lease, the lessee continues to have exclusive lease rights and use rights over the object of the lease. 


 

			
	Lessor: Daqo New Material Co., Ltd.	 	Lessee: Chongqing Daqo New Energy Co., Ltd.
	/s/ Daqo New Material Co., Ltd.	 	/s/ Chongqing Daqo New Energy Co., Ltd.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-16-00367-CV

Kelly Y. Garner

v.

Terry J. Weeks

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law No 1 of Travis County, Texas

Trial Cause No. C-1-CV-15-010695

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

December 8, 2016
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MACROPOINT, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

FOURKITES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-1286

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Ohio in No. 1:15-cv-01002-PAG, 

Judge Patricia A. Gaughan.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

CRAIG E. COUNTRYMAN, Fish & Richardson, PC, San 

Diego, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by JARED ALEXANDER SMITH; AHMED JAMAL DAVIS, 

Washington, DC. 

GARY EDWARD HOOD, Polsinelli PC, Chicago, IL, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by MARK 

THOMAS DEMING, ADAM S. WEISS. 

______________________ 
 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (MOORE, REYNA, and TARANTO, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

December 8, 2016 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 23





                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT



The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Odd Job Stores, Inc.:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No.
333-32275 on Form S-8 of Odd Job Stores, Inc. of our report dated March 7,
2003, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Odd Job Stores, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and February 2, 2002, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for
the eleven months ended December 31, 2002 and the fiscal years ended
February 2, 2002 and February 3, 2001, which report appears in the December 31,
2002 Form 10-K of Odd Job Stores, Inc.



/s/ KPMG
---------------------
Cleveland, Ohio
April 30, 2003
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-16-00665-CR

IN RE Abelardo MARTINEZ

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 7, 2016

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED AS MOOT

Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus complaining the trial court had failed to 

rule on a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc in which Relator sought to have his judgment 

corrected to show credit for time he served prior to the date sentence was pronounced. On 

November 18, 2016 the trial court filed with this court two amended judgments, each dated 

November 14, 2016, in which additional time was credited towards Relator’s sentence. Because 

these judgments constitute rulings upon Relator’s motion, this mandamus proceeding has become 

moot and is, accordingly, dismissed.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 06-09-03038-ZCR and Cause No. 06-09-03039-ZCRCLM, both styled State 

of Texas v. Abelardo Martinez, pending in the 293rd Judicial District Court, Zavala County, Texas, the Honorable 

Cynthia L. Muniz presiding.
#### Peck v. Sugden

*642On June 14, 1977, plaintiff filed a notice complaint against William Sugden, M.D. On July 19, 1977, plaintiff filed her complaint against said defendant. Thereafter, on July 28, 1977, defendant filed preliminary objections to the complaint, stating that all the treatment rendered by defendant to plaintiff occurred prior to the January 13, 1976, effective date of the Health Care Services Malpractice Act, 40 P.S. §1301.1008 (hereinafter the act). Plaintiffs answer to said preliminary objections was filed on August 5, 1977, and plaintiff therein admits that treatment given by defendant occurred prior to January 15, 1976 [sic].

Section 1003 of the act (40 P.S. §1301.1003) provides the following:

> ‘Tnapplicability to prior services. The provisions of this act do not apply to injuries or death from services rendered or which should have been rendered by a health care provider which occurred before the effective date of this act.”

Therefore it is clear from the above-cited provision of the act, that the act and the arbitration panel system established thereunder, applies to cases only where the medical procedure giving rise to the *643claim occurred on or after the effective date of the act, i.e., January 13, 1976. Plaintifff argues in its answer to said preliminary objections that notwithstanding section 1003, “Subsection 103, provides that the liability of an insurer is limited to ‘only those claims made or reported during the currency of the policy period.”’

Plaintiff has misread section 103, which is a definition section. The portion of section 103 to which plaintiff makes reference is merely a definition of a “claims made” policy of professional liability insurance. It has no bearing whatsoever upon the jurisdiction of the arbitration panel system to hear and decide claims involving alleged acts of medical malpractice.

We will not rule at this time on our authority to transfer this action to an appropriate court of common pleas. If such a course of action is desired, an appropriate motion with a memorandum of law citing authority therefore should be filed promptly with the administrator.

ORDER

And now, August 15, 1977, upon consideration of defendant’s preliminary objections, and plaintiffs answer to said preliminary objections, it is hereby ordered and decreed that this action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Exhibit 32.01  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 Sangui Biotech International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas Striepe, Chief Executive Officer and I, Joachim Fleing, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (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 result of operations of the Company.    Dated: March 13, 2015 /s/ Thomas Striepe By: Thomas Striepe Chief Executive Officer   Dated: March 13, 2015 /s/ Joachim Fleing By: Joachim Fleing Chief Financial Officer   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40554

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

JOSE LUIS GARZA, 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeals from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 1:10-CR-1204-1 

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Luis Garza, federal prisoner # 78390-279, appeals the district 

court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentencing reduction 

based on retroactive Amendment 782 to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. In deciding a 

Section 3582(c)(2) motion, the district court is required first to consider 

whether the movant is eligible for a sentence reduction and then to consider 

whether, as a matter of discretion, the reduction “is warranted in whole or in 

 

* 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

December 5, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40554 Document: 00513784523 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/05/2016
No. 16-40554

2 

part under the particular circumstances of the case.” Dillon v. United States, 

560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010). Garza’s contentions are unavailing. 

First, Garza argues that the district court procedurally erred because, 

before denying his motion, the court failed to compute the applicable guidelines 

range with the reduction. This argument is not supported by the record. Id.; 

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1) (policy statement). Moreover, the district court 

implicitly determined that Garza was eligible for the reduction but that he was 

not entitled to it, such that any error in not complying with the first step was 

harmless. 

Second, Garza argues that the district court abused its discretion when 

it denied his motion because it applied 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) too narrowly in that 

it focused on Garza’s prior criminal history, which it had already considered, 

and ignored other factors, such as his post-sentence rehabilitation conduct. 

This argument is also unavailing. See United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 

713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011). The district court’s focus on Garza’s offense conduct, 

criminal history, and post-sentencing conduct in denying Garza’s motion was 

well within the court’s discretion. See § 3553(a)(1); Henderson, 636 F.3d at 717. 

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 

Finally, Garza’s motion for the appointment of counsel on appeal is 

DENIED, as he has no constitutional or statutory right to the appointment of 

counsel on appeal, and nothing in Garza’s case suggests that fundamental 

fairness or the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel on 

appeal. See United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010–11 (5th Cir. 1995). 

 Case: 16-40554 Document: 00513784523 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/05/2016
#### First National Bank of Jersey City, Plaintiff, *v.*Valley Stream Development Co., Inc., and Others, Defendants.*

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

March 9, 1937.

*Orr & Brennan,*for the plaintiff.

*Meyer Feldman,*for the defendant Valley Stream Development Co., Inc.

*David Feldman,*for the defendant Meyer Feldman.

*William Feldman,*for the defendant Clara H. Feldman.

*Sidney Schwach,*for the defendant Ruth Harber.

*John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General,*for the People of the State of New York.

*

 Affd., 251 App. Div. 826; motion for leave to appeal denied, 252 id. 749;276 N. Y.687.

*947Brennan, J.

This is a motion for summary judgment in a foreclosure action. The action had proceeded to judgment and sale when the plaintiff learned that during the period between the completion of its foreclosure search and the filing of its notice of pendency of the action the defendant Valley Stream Development Co., Inc., had conveyed the premises to its president, the defendant Meyer Feldman executed and delivered a full covenant and warranty deed to the defendant Harber, which deed was later recorded as a mortgage. For the purpose of bringing in the extra defendants interested in the premises because of these transactions, the plaintiff, without notice to Harber, who was not then a party, but on notice to the aforesaid corporation, then the only defendant appearing; in the action, made a motion for and was granted an order setting aside the referee’s deed, and opening up the proceedings and for leave to serve and file an amended complaint.

The substance of the claim of the defendant Harber seems to be that the taking of the deed from the referee in foreclosure merged the mortgage being foreclosed in said deed. No such merger is recognized when a necessary party is omitted in a foreclosure action. In such a case the purchaser at foreclosure becomes, as to those whose rights have not been cut off, an assignee of the mortgage. (8 Carmody’s N. Y. Practice, 1077.)

Aside from the priority claim aforesaid, the defendants contend that the summary judgment should be denied for the reason that the complaint fails to allege the assignment to the plaintiff of the bond and that it is now the owner and holder of said bond.

That contention, if brought up at the trial, would undoubtedly be disposed of by permitting the amendment of the complaint without adjourning the trial. (Rules Civ. Prac. rule 166.) The assignment alleged in the complaint specifically included the bond as well as the mortgage, in fact, it was produced before the referee in the computation, and is now in the possession of the plaintiff.

In view of the foregoing and the fact that no substantial right of any party will be prejudiced thereby, the complaint will be deemed amended as set forth in the reply affidavit of William C. Orr.

The plaintiff’s motion is in all respects granted, and the cross-motions, and each of them, are denied.
<PAGE>

Guitar Center, Inc.
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(Dollars in thousands)
(unaudited)

EXHIBIT 12.1
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                 Year Ended December 31,

                                                              1999           1998           1997           1996           1995
                                                           ------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                         <C>        <C>             <C>          <C>              <C>
Income (loss) before income taxes and extraordinary loss        18,959    $    13,258    $    20,393   $    (66,879)   $    13,710
  Add:     Interest expense                                     11,235         10,844          9,892         12,557            368
           Portion of rents representative of
            interest factor                                      3,916          2,632          1,605          1,054            744
                                                           ------------------------------------------------------------------------

           Earnings (loss) as adjusted                          34,110         26,734         31,890        (53,268)        14,822

Fixed charges:
           Interest expense                                     11,235         10,844          9,892         12,557            368
           Portion of rents representative of
             interest factor                                     1,423          2,632          1,605          1,054            744
                                                           ------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Total fixed charges                                  12,658         13,476         11,497         13,611          1,112

Ratio of earnings fixed charges                                    2.7            2.0            2.8           -3.9           13.3
                                                           ========================================================================
</TABLE>

(a)        The ratio of earnings to fixed charges has been computed based upon
           earnings (loss) before provision for income taxes and fixed charges.
           Fixed charges consist of interest expense and one third of rental
           expense (the proportion deemed representative of the interest
           factor).

(b)        Earnings (loss) before income taxes and fixed charges were
           insufficient to cover fixed charges by $66.9 million for the year
           ended December 31, 1996.
# C_2015324EN.01002901.xml

| 2.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 324/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/29

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2015/C 324/11)

Image

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

Issuing country
  : San Marino

Issuing country

Subject of commemoration
  : 25th anniversary of the German reunification

Subject of commemoration

Description of the design
  : The design shows the Brandenburg Gate which during the Cold War was located in East Berlin, in two representations which are intertwined like two hands, symbolizing the reunification of the two parts of Berlin. At the left the mint mark ‘R’ and the initials of the artist ‘ES’ (Erik Spiekermann). In circle around the design are the inscription ‘25o ANNIVERSARIO DELLA RIUNIFICAZIONE DELLA GERMANIA 1990-2015’ (25th anniversary of the German reunification) and the country and year of issuance ‘San Marino MMXV’.

Description of the design

o

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Number of coins to be issued
  :

Number of coins to be issued

Date of issue
  : September 2015

Date of issue

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

2

---
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

In the Matter of D. D. H., a Juvenile,

 Appellant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00316-CV

Appeal from the

65th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 1600219)

O R D E R

In order to protect the identity of the minor child who is the subject of this appeal, the Court 

has determined on its own motion that it is necessary to identify Appellant by his initials, D. D. H.,

in all papers submitted to the Court, including letters, motions, and briefs. See TEX.R.APP.P.

9.8(c). Additionally, the parties are required to identify a minor’s parent or other family member 

by initials or an alias as required by Rule 9.8(c). All documents must be redacted accordingly. 

The Court will likewise use initials to identify Appellant and family members in correspondence, 

orders, and in its opinion and judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 5

th day of December, 2016.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Hughes, JJ.