alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Prepared by R.R. Donnelley Financial -- Line of Credit Agreement dated 02/11/2002


 EXHIBIT 10.28 
  
 Ghent, February 11th, 2002 
  

Dear Sirs, 
  
 Subject: Increase of your credit line 
  
 In connection to our negotiations, please note that we have
the honor to inform you that the credit line is granted in the amount of 1.241.000 Euro. 
  
 Application = 
  

	 	1.
	 
	For the amount of 991.000 Euro 
 

  

	 	•
	 
	by cash disposals BBL Factoring 
 

  

	 	•
	 
	by Advances BBL Factoring 
 

  

	 	2.
	 
	For the amount of 250.000 Euro 
 

  

	 	•
	 
	by cash disposals 
 

  

	 	•
	 
	by cash disposals in USD, till the converted amount reaches the level of the euro amount, following the most recent known actual conversion rate 



  

	 	•
	 
	by advances in Euro and/or by advances in USD, till the counter value of named amount, for the maximum term of 3 months. Each advance will be minimum 125.000
Euro. 
 

  

	 	•
	 
	by opening of a documentary credit, approved by us, executable following our instructions and our approval and at our terms, to be determinated case by case and
against the needed documents. 
 

  
 The documentary credits are managed by the “uniformed rules
and habits concerning documentary credit’s” published by the international Chamber of Commerce. 
  
 The
total of all the files may not exceed the amount of the credit line. 
  
 Guaranties 
  

All your commitments, resulting by this business agreement between the bank and yourself, will be guarantied by = 
  

	 	•
	 
	a pawn of the first line for the amount of 250.000 Euro, following the text below. 
 

  

	 	•
	 
	a pawn of cash, deposits on account 390-0344064-60, actions at bearer and dematerialized stocks to be booked by the will of the bank, after being registered in
the file of hypoticated stocks on account 390-0344064-70 
 

  

	 	•
	 
	this pawn will be given by Mr. de Vreese Guy–Maureen Seifert, 
 







  

	 	•
	 
	the value of all stocks and deposits should not be smaller than 219.000 Euro or an equivalent in Cash. 
 

  

	 	•
	 
	once this obligation is fulfilled, we will release stocks for the amount of 19.000 Euro, underwritten by Mr. de Vreese Guy and Maureen Seifert on January 22,
2002. 
 

  
 Other modalities 
  
 The credit line of 250.000 Euro’s, usable in cash disposals, advances and documentary credit, will only become effective when DMD NV will have fulfilled its modalities concerning a previous and
already closed credit obligation. 
  
 The study and administrative costs are 625 Euro. Seeing our good business
relationship this amount will exceptionally be reduced to 250 Euro, which will be debited on your account. 
  
 
	 Regards, 
 	 	  	 	  
	 
	 /s/    JULIEN VAN DE DRIESCHE
 
	 	  	 	 /s/    DANIEL DEPREZ
 

	 Julien van de Driesche
 	 	  	 	 Daniel Deprez
EXHIBIT
32.1



CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended
April 30, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned,
George H. Kirby III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | (1) | 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 results of operations
    of the Company.



|/s/ George H. Kirby III               | 
|------------------------------------- | 
|George H. Kirby III                   | 
|President and Chief Executive Officer | 



Date:
March 11, 2019



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.
JACK CARSWELL, MINOR CHILD, AND JULIE CARSWELL AND JACK CARSWELL, PARENTS

, Appellant s ,

v.

FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOLS, INC. ; FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOO LS, INC., BOARD OF DIRECTORS; AND FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES

, Appellee s

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 13

- 6157

_____________________________/

Opinion filed September 19, 2014.

An a ppeal from an order of the Division of Administrative Hearings

. E. Gary Early, Administrative Law Judge

.
M. Linville Atkins, Tallahassee , for Appellant s

. Robyn Blank Jackson and Lisa Scole s, Associate General Counsels, Tallahassee, for Appellee F lorida S tate U niversity Board of Trustees

. Jon C. Moyle, Jr., of Moyle Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee

, for Appellee Florida State University Schools, Inc., and Florida State University Schools Inc., Board of Directors

.PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS

, MARSTILLER

, a nd SWANSON

, J J

. , CONCUR.

2
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 8031** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. JOSUE MONROY, a/k/a Feo , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt
. Alexander Williams, Jr. , District Judge. ( 8:10

- cr - 00237

- AW

- 1 )

Submitted : March 28, 2013 Decided: April 4, 2013

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Josue Monroy, Appellant Pro Se. George Jarrod Hazel, Arun G. Rao, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Josue Monroy appeals the district cour t’s order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Monroy , N o. 8 : 10

- cr - 00 237

- AW

- 1 (D. Md. Nov. 1, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately prese nted in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-85,952-04

EX PARTE BRENT JUSTICE, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 1385768-C IN THE 176 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant was convicted of cruelty to non-livestock animals and sentenced to twenty years’

imprisonment. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Justice v. State, No. 14-

18-00462-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [14 Dist.] Apr. 9, 2020) (not designated for publication). th

Applicant filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the

district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

Applicant contends, among other things, that trial and appellate counsel were ineffective. 

Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Strickland v. Washington, 466

U.S. 668 (1984). Additionally, this Court’s independent review of the habeas corpus record reveals 

that based on Applicant’s date of offense, the enhancement provision under which he was sentenced
2

could be inapplicable to this case, resulting in a potentially illegal sentence. 

Accordingly, the record should be developed. The trial court is the appropriate forum for

findings of fact. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d). The trial court shall order counsel to

respond to Applicant’s claims. In developing the record, the trial court may use any means set out

in Article 11.07, § 3(d). If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether

Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is indigent and wants to be represented by counsel, the trial court

shall appoint counsel to represent him at the hearing. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. If

counsel is appointed or retained, the trial court shall immediately notify this Court of counsel’s

name.

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether trial and

appellate counsel were deficient and whether Applicant was prejudiced. The trial court shall also

make specific findings and conclusions determining whether Applicant’s sentence is within the

applicable punishment range, given the date of his offense and any prior convictions that were

available for enhancement. The trial court may make any other findings and conclusions that it

deems appropriate in response to Applicant’s claims.

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law within ninety days from

the date of this order. The district clerk shall then immediately forward to this Court the trial court’s

findings and conclusions and the record developed on remand, including, among other things,

affidavits, motions, objections, proposed findings and conclusions, orders, and transcripts from

hearings and depositions. See TEX.R.APP. P. 73.4(b)(4). Any extensions of time must be requested

by the trial court and obtained from this Court.
3

Filed: March 10, 2021

Do not publish
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 5, 2018

No. 04-17-00091-CV

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

Appellant

v.

Hector R. RAMIREZ,

Appellee

From the 406th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CVT002640-D4

Honorable Oscar J. Hale, Jr., Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The appellant’s unopposed motion for extension of time to file motion for rehearing is 

hereby GRANTED. Time is extended to September 24, 2018.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 5th day of September, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

> 

I, Ben Yan, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Sino Fibre Communications, Inc., certify that;

(1)         I have reviewed this report on Form 10-KSB/A (Amendment No. 1) for the year ended December 31, 2007 of Sino Fibre Communications, Inc.;

(2)         Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Report;

(3)         Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

(4)         The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)         designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)         evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(c)         disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

(5)         The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)         all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)         any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  April 22, 2008

/s/ Ben Yan

Ben Yan
#### Joshua Seth BRENNER Plaintiff-Appellant v. AMERICAN EDUCATION SERVICES (AES) Defendant-Appellee

No. 17-1981

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: November 15, 2017

Filed: November 21, 2017

Joshua Seth Brenner, Pro Se

Paul D. Satterwhite, Spencer *&*Fane, Springfield, MO, for Defendant-Appellee

Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Joshua Seth Brenner sued American Education Services (AES), alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, Brenner appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Reviewing the record de novo in the light most favorable to the non moving party, this court concludes that summary *504judgment was proper. *See Murchison v. Rogers,*779 F.3d 882, 886-87 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard of review). Brenner failed to provide probative evidence that AES used an automatic telephone dialing system, or a prerecorded or artificial voice to make calls to his cell phone, an essential element of his claim. *See*47 U.S.C. § 227(b) (prohibiting calls to cell phones using automatic telephone dialing system or artificial or prerecorded voice without prior express consent of called party); *Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,*477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (summary judgment is proper “against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial”); *Moody v. St. Charles Cty.,*23 F.3d 1410, 1412 (8th Cir. 1994) (to defeat summary judgment, non-moving party must substantiate allegations with sufficient probative evidence that would allow finding in his favor based on more than conjecture, speculation, or his own naked assertions).

The judgment is affirmed. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
#### Commonwealth, Appellant, *v.*McCullough.

Argued March 31, 1953.

Before Stern, C. J., Stearne, Jones, Chidsey, Musmanno and Arnold, JJ.

*403
      *Randolph C. Ryder,*Deputy Attorney General, with him *Robert B. Greer, Jr.,*and *Robert E. Woodside,*Attorney General, for appellant.

No argument was made nor brief submitted for appellee.

April 22, 1953:

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Allen M. Stearne,

This is an appeal by the Commonwealth from an order of the court of common pleas setting aside a suspension by the Secretary of Revenue of an operator’s license for operating a motor vehicle. The offense charged was speed on a public highway at eighty miles per hour where the maximum lawful speed was fifty miles per hour.

What we said in *Commonwealth v. Emerick,*373 Pa. 388, 96 A. 2d 370, relating to legal principles and the construction of The Vehicle Code has similar application to the facts in the present case.

Robert McCullough, defendant, was charged by a state policeman with traveling, on April 18, 1952, on a public highway at eighty miles per hour at 11:50 p.m. It was testified that defendant drove through a thirty-five-mile-an-hour restricted speed zone at fifty to fifty-five miles per hour. He was followed by the policeman for four or five miles, during which period defendant was “clocked” speeding at eighty miles per hour. Defendant did not deny the charge, although he “thought” that he had not exceeded the speed limit in the restricted zone. This was defendant’s second speeding offense. The learned hearing judge decided, solely because of economic hardship, that the suspen*404sion of the operator’s license by the Secretary of Revenue should be revoked and the license restored. In the order the court said: . . it appearing to the Court that the [defendant] is employed by the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad as a telegraph operator in their Pittsburgh office, that there is no public transportation facilities available to take him to and from his home and place of employment, that no other members of the petitioner’s family can drive for him, that there is no one in his community with whom he might ride, that it would be impossible for him to take care of his work during the time when his license would be suspended and that he has no other source of income or means of earning his livelihood and that the suspension of his operator’s privileges would result in irreparable loss to him, the Order of the Secretary of Revenue suspending the operator’s privileges of the petitioner is hereby set aside and the operator’s privileges restored to Robert McCullough.”

Such order constitutes a manifest abuse of discretion by the court below.

The order is reversed at the cost of appellee.
UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

J.R. MCFARLANE, K.J. BRUBAKER, D.J. SMITH

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

CLEMENTE HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ

CORPORAL (E-4), U.S. MARINE CORPS

NMCCA 201500011

SPECIAL COURT-MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 30 September 2014.

Military Judge: LtCol E.A. Harvey, USMC.

Convening Authority: Commanding Officer, Headquarters and 

Support Battalion, Marine Corps Installations West, Marine 

Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, CA.

Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: LtCol P.D. Sanchez, 

USMC.

For Appellant: Maj Jason L. Morris, USMCR.

For Appellee: Mr. Brian K. Keller, Esq.

19 March 2015

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

OPINION OF THE COURT 

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

 

 After careful consideration of the record, submitted 

without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence 

as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform 

Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

 

For the Court

 

 

 

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 16

- 00699

- CV
Service Corporation International and SCI Texas Funeral Services, Inc., d/b/a Buena

Vista Burial Park and d/b/a Funeraria de l Angel Buena Vista v. Maria Ruiz

On a ppeal from the 138th District Court of Ca meron County , Texas Trial Cause No. 2015

- DCL

- 06302

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause
remanded to the trial court . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appell ee

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. January 25 , 2018
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          49,810
<SECURITIES>                                    43,862
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,128<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                      1,803
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                95,103
<PP&E>                                         253,468
<DEPRECIATION>                                  30,046
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 389,097
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           57,041
<BONDS>                                        227,219
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      89,413
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   389,097
<SALES>                                          2,604<F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                83,060
<CGS>                                            2,836
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   46,366
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,249
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,035
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,035
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,035
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
Amounts inapplicable or not disclosed as a separate line item on the Statement
of Financial Position or Results of Operations are reported as 0 herein.
<F1>Notes and accounts receivable-trade are reported net of allowances for
doubtful accounts in the Statement of Financial Position.
<F2>Net sales are reported net of promotional allowances applicable to tangible
items.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>