alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.2





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, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Derek Palaschuk, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer 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, 2002 and results of operations of the Company for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2002.





/s/      Derek PalaschukDerek Palaschuk, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerNovember 14, 2002
ACCEPTED 14-15-00015-cv FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 10/13/2015 12:41:12 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION

(Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

The undersigned hereby certifies that (i) the foregoing Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the registrant.



|                     |  |                                                  
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 11, 2009 |  | /s/ Ronald Leon Moore                            
|                     |  | Ronald Leon Moore                                
|                     |  | Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer    
|                     | 
|Date: March 11, 2009 |  | /s/ J. Alan Dickerson                            
|                     |  | J. Alan Dickerson                                
|                     |  | Vice President, Cashier & Chief Financial Officer



60
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A0601. TRAVIS JOHNSON v. THE STATE.

In 2010, Travis Johnson pled guilty to armed robbery, robbery, and possession

of a firearm during the commission of a crime. The trial court imposed a 20-year

sentence on the conviction for armed robbery, a consecutive 20-year sentence on the

conviction for robbery, and a consecutive 5-year sentence on the conviction for

possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. In September 2016,

Johnson filed a motion to vacate or correct void sentence, which the trial court

denied. He now appeals. We lack jurisdiction.

A direct appeal may lie from an order denying a motion to vacate or correct a

void sentence only if the defendant raises a colorable claim that the sentence is, in

fact, void. See Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216, 217, n. 1 (686 SE2d 786) (2009); Burg

v. State, 297 Ga. App. 118, 119 (676 SE2d 465) (2009). “Motions to vacate a void

sentence generally are limited to claims that – even assuming the existence and

validity of the conviction for which the sentence was imposed – the law does not

authorize thatsentence, most typically because it exceedsthe mostsevere punishment

for which the applicable penal statute provides.” von Thomas v. State, 293 Ga. 569,

572 (2) (748 SE2d 446) (2013). When a sentence is within the statutory range of

punishment, it is not void. Jones v. State, 278 Ga. 669, 670 (604 SE2d 483) (2004).

Johnson argued in his motion to vacate or correct void sentence that the trial

court lacked the authority to impose the sentence on his robbery conviction because

that conviction should have merged into his armed robbery conviction. Johnson’s

merger claim is a challenge to his convictions, not his sentences, and thus does not

state a valid void-sentence claim. See Williams v. State, 287 Ga. 192, 193-194 (695

November 30, 2016
SE2d 244) (2010).

Because Johnson has not raised a valid void-sentence claim, we lack

jurisdiction to consider his appeal. See Harper, 286 Ga. at 218 (2). Moreover, to the

extent that Johnson’s motion could be construed as seeking to vacate or modify his

convictions, “a petition to vacate or modify a judgment of conviction is not an

appropriate remedy in a criminal case,” id. at 218 (1), and any appeal from an order

denying or dismissing such a motion must be dismissed, see id. at 218 (2); see also

Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532, 532 (690 SE2d 150) (2010).

For these reasons, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

11/30/2016
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.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on February 23, 2015, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Petroleum Environmental Research Forum Project No. 2013-07, Stream Speciation Update (“PERF Project No. 2013-07”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties to the venture and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties to the venture are: ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company, Fairfax, VA; Chevron U.S.A., Inc., San Ramon, CA; BP Products North America Inc., Naperville, IL; and Shell Global Solutions (US) Inc., Houston, TX. The general area of PERF Project No. 2013-07's planned activity is, through cooperative research efforts, to explore whether sufficient changes in refinery stream compositions have occurred to warrant updating the existing PERF report (API, Refinery Stream Speciation, Publication Number 4723, November 2002). If justified, the project will consider utilizing a combination of Participant data already existing (blinded and de-identified) and/or publicly available company data to update the existing PERF report.

Patricia A. Brink,

Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2015-07526 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE CODE P
Exhibit 4.78

	 
	 
	 


This is an English Translation


 


Spousal Consent
Letter


 


I, Chunchao Zheng (ID No:    ), as the
legal spouse of Zhenyu Xie (ID No:    ), hereby unconditionally agree that the equity interests of Beijing Star World Technology Company
Limited , owned by and registered under name of my spouse, is disposed in accordance with the arrangements under Loan Agreement,
Equity, Equity Disposition Agreement and Equity Pledge Agreement dated as of April 26, 2012 and other supplementary agreements
to be signed from time to time.


 


I further guarantee not to take any
action at any time with an intention conflicting against the above-identified arrangements, including making a claim to court or
other competent authorities that such equity interests constitute the property or community property between my spouse and me.
I, unconditionally and irrevocably, hereby waive any and all rights or benefits granted to me with relation to such equity interests
under applicable laws and confirm that in no event such equity interests constitute any community property between my spouse and
me.


 


	 	 	 
	 	Name of the Spouse:	 /s/ Chunchao Zheng
	 	 	Chunchao Zheng
	 	ID No:	 
	 	Date	April 26, 2012


 


Witness:


 


 


/s/ Mingzhe Zhou


_______________________


Mingzhe Zhou


 


 


 


 


/s/ Qiuhua Xu


_______________________


Qiuhua Xu
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., TELIT CINTERION DEUTSCHLAND GMBH , fdba Thales DIS AIS Deutschland GmbH , SIERRA WIRELESS, ULC, fka Sierra Wireless, Inc. , Appellants

v.
3G LICENSING, S.A., Appellee

______________________
2023

- 1354, 2023

- 1384, 2023

- 1407

______________________ Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2021

- 00908.

-------------------------------------------------
TCL COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS LIMITED, TCT MOBILE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, TCT MOBILE, INC., TCT MOBILE (US) INC., TCT MOBILE (US) HOLDINGS, INC., Appellants

v. Case: 23-1354 Document: 65 Page: 1 Filed: 08/13/2024HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC

. v. 3 G LICENSING , S

. A

. 2

3G LICENSING, S.A., Appellee

______________________
2023

- 1361

______________________ Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2021

- 00908.

______________________ ON MOTION

______________________ O R D E R TCT Mobile International Limited, TCT Mobile, Inc., TCT Mobile (US) Inc., TCT Mobile (US) Holdings, Inc., and TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited (collectively, “TCL/TCT”) move unopposed to withdraw as parties to the above

- captioned appeal s

. TCL/TCT and 3G Licensing, S.A. also submit a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal of TCL/TCT’s Appeal No. 2023

- 1361 pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) with each side to bear its own costs

. Upon consideration thereof
, I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) The motion is granted , and Appeal No. 2023

- 1361is dismissed. The official caption for the remaining appeal s , Appeal No s . 202 3

- 1354 et al. , is revised as reflected in this order. ( 2) Each side shall bear its own costs in Appeal No. 2023

- 1361

. Case: 23-1354 Document: 65 Page: 2 Filed: 08/13/2024HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC

. v. 3 G LICENSING , S

. A

. 3

(3) The Clerk of Court shall transmit a copy of this order to the merits panel assigned to Appeal No s

. 2023

- 1354 et al.

August 13 , 2024 Date F OR THE C OURT

ISSUED AS A MANDATE (as to 2023

- 1361 only) : A ugust 13, 2024 Case: 23-1354 Document: 65 Page: 3 Filed: 08/13/2024
EX-4.24



 Exhibit 4.24 
 SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT No 1 
 TO THE ZT ONLINE 2 EXCLUSIVE
TECHNICAL CONSULTING AND SERVICE AGREEMENT 
 This Supplementary Agreement to the ZT Online 2 Exclusive Technical Consulting and Service
Agreement (“Supplementary Agreement”) is made and entered into on January 6, 2012 (“Effective date”) in Shanghai, the People’s Republic of China, by and between: 

Party A: Shanghai Zhengju Information Technology Co., Ltd. 
 Address: Room 137, No.209, Caodong Road, Shanghai, the People’s Republic of China 

Representative: FEI, Yongjun 
 Party B:
Shanghai Giant Network Technology Co., Ltd. 
 Address: Room 708, Building No.29, 396 Guilin Road, Shanghai, the People’s Republic of
China 
 Representative: FEI, Yongjun 

WHEREAS, 
  

	1.	Party A and Party B entered into the ZT Online 2 Exclusive Technical Consulting and Service Agreement (the “Original Agreement”) on January 5,
2012 in Shanghai. According to the Original Agreement, Party B agrees to pay consulting fee to Party A to obtain from Party A technical support, marketing strategic advice and development support relating to the ZT Online 2 game software.


  

	2.	Through friendly negotiations, Party A and Party B unanimously agree to amend such clauses in the Original Agreement. 


NOW, THEREFORE, adhering to the principles of equality and mutual benefit, and after friendly negotiations, the Parties reach the following
supplementary agreement to the Original Agreement: 
  

	1.	The Parties hereby to add subsection 7.4 to the Original Agreement as follows: 

 “7.4 Party A and Party B agree that if either party has received the written notice from Shanghai Zhengtu Information Technology Co., Ltd. to terminate this Agreement, the Parties shall immediately
negotiate and terminate this Agreement according to the notice; if the termination of this Agreement is due to the above reason, Party A and Party B shall not be bound by subsection 7.1 and 7.2 of this Agreement.” 

 

	2.	In all the rest that is not provided by this Supplementary Agreement the Parties shall be governed by the Original Agreement. 


 

	3.	This Supplementary Agreement shall become effective immediately upon sealed by the Parties. 


 

			
	Party A: Shanghai Zhengju Information Technology Co., Ltd.	 	Party B: Shanghai Giant Network Technology Co., Ltd.
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

# AGENCY:

Office of Nonproliferation and Arms Control, Department of Energy.

# ACTION:

Proposed subsequent arrangement.

# SUMMARY:

This document is being issued under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The Department is providing notice of a proposed subsequent arrangement under the Agreement for Cooperation Concerning Civil Uses of Nuclear Energy Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada and the Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy Between the United States of America and the European Atomic Energy Community.

# DATES:

This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than April 14, 2015.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Katie Strangis, Office of Nonproliferation and Arms Control, National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy. Telephone: 202-586-8623 or email: *Katie.Strangis@nnsa.doe.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This subsequent arrangement concerns the retransfer of 221,893 kg of U.S.-origin natural uranium hexafluoride (UF6) (67.6% U), 150,000 kg of which is uranium, from Cameco Corporation (Cameco) in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, to Urenco Ltd. (URENCO) in Almelo, The Netherlands. The material, which is currently located at Cameco in Port Hope, Ontario, will be used for toll enrichment by URENCO at its facility in Almelo, The Netherlands. The material was originally obtained by Cameco from Power Resources, Inc., Cameco Resources-Crowe Butte Operation, and White Mesa Mill pursuant to export license XSOU8798.

In accordance with section 131a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, it has been determined that       ( print page 16661)    this subsequent arrangement concerning the retransfer of nuclear material of United States origin will not be inimical to the common defense and security of the United States of America.

Dated: March 11, 2015.

For the Department of Energy.

Anne M. Harrington,

Deputy Administrator, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.

[FR Doc. 2015-07214 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
(1980). Due process requires, in part, that these revocations include a 

written statement of the evidence and reasoning upon which the district 

court relied. See Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 786 (1973). 

Transcribed oral findings ordinarily satisfy this requirement, so long as 

the oral findings make the basis of the revocation and the evidence relied 

upon sufficiently clear. United States v. Sesma-Hernandez, 253 F.3d 403, 

405-06 (9th Cir. 2001). "[S]pecific findings with reference to the evidence 

supporting charges are not constitutionally required where a defendant 

raises no objection to the sufficiency or accuracy of the evidence, and the 

district court finds that the government sufficiently proved the charged 

conduct." Id. at 409. 

Here, appellant raised no objection to the sufficiency or 

accuracy of the evidence at the revocation hearing; he merely disputed the 

outcome. Appellant expressly conceded all of the facts relevant to our 

inquiry and only argued that these stipulated facts did not constitute 

substantive violations of his probation. Contrary to appellant's 

contention, the record clearly establishes that appellant violated multiple 

conditions of his probation. Under the circumstances of this case, we 

conclude that appellant has not demonstrated that the district court 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 

(0) 1947A cat. 
abused its discretion by revoking his probation and entering an amended 

judgment of conviction. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

J. 

Cherry 

cc: Eighth Judicial District Court Dept. 15 

Reza Athari & Associates PLLC 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

3 

(tip 1947A 4e1/4. 47.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6829

FRANCIS RUSSELL HOLLEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA97-1501-S)

Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: May 27, 1998

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Francis Russell Holley, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing pleading evincing his intent to seek relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254

(West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. Holley v. Maryland, No. CA-97-

1501-S (D. Md. May 9, 1997). 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.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                           80,976
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                   362,056
<ALLOWANCES>                   (12,268)
<INVENTORY>                       9,278
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                511,249
<PP&E>                        1,100,017
<DEPRECIATION>                (706,038)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  925,486
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           414,300
<BONDS>                          15,100
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<COMMON>                         57,394
<OTHER-SE>                      175,117
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    925,486
<SALES>                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              1,727,509
<CGS>                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 1,677,956
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  2,840
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                2,163
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  46,713
<INCOME-TAX>                     24,758
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              21,955
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                     21,955
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      1.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                      0.98
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1


                                  Subsidiaries



Name                                                 Jurisdiction of Formation
----                                                 -------------------------
NCO Financial Systems, Inc.                          Pennsylvania
NCO Funding, Inc.                                    Delaware
NCO Financial Services, Inc.                         Canada
FCA Funding, Inc.                                    Delaware
NCO Portfolio Management, Inc. *                     Delaware
Compass International Services Corporation           Delaware
NCO Financial Services (UK), Limited                 United Kingdom
NCO Financial Systems of Puerto Rico, Inc.           Puerto Rico
JDR Holdings, Inc.                                   Delaware
NCO Holdings, Inc.                                   Delaware
NCO Benefit Systems, Inc.                            Pennsylvania

* Owns 22 subsidiaries operating in the United States engaged in the ownership
  of delinquent receivables.

Note: This table does not include any subsidiary that is not required to be
      listed pursuant to Item 601 (b) (21) of Regulation S-K.