alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
      4.19




**Supplementary
      Agreement on Imported Material for Processing**





Party
      A:
      Shenzhen Long Gong City Ping Hu Golden Bright Factory


Party
      B:
      Golden Bright Plastic Manufacturing Co. Ltd.


Business
      Unit: Shenzhen Long Gong City Foreign Economic Services Company





The
      original agreement is expired on 20 February, 2009. Due to successful mutual
      cooperation and the expansion on production capacity, Party A and Party B agree
      to extend the agreement by ten years, i.e. the new expiry date is 20 February,
      2019. Below are the supplementary clauses:





a.
            Fixed
                Processing Fee is adjusted to USD1.66 per square meter
                monthly.


b.
            Local
                Labour Working Fee is adjusted to USD83.33 per head
                monthly.


c.
            Due
                to Inflation, Fixed Processing Fee and Local Labour Working Fee will
                be
                adjusted in every two years with mutual
                agreement.





All
      other
      clauses remain unchanged.





This
      Agreement has 6 original copies and the agreement must be signed and stamped
      by
      all parties and need the approval by the related authority in order to come
      into
      effective.





Party
      A:
      Shenzhen Long Gong City Ping Hu Golden Bright Factory


Legal
      Representative (signature) :


Address
      :


Telephone
      :





Party
      B:
      Golden Bright Plastic Manufacturing Co. Ltd.


Legal
      Representative (signature) :


Address
      :


Telephone
      :





Business
      Unit: Shenzhen Long Gong City Foreign Economic Services Company


Person-in-charge
      (signature) :


Address
      :


Telephone
      :





*(all
      Parties signed and stamped)*




Date:
      28
      February, 2008
#### Com. v. Sullivan

12/08/2015

277 EAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 121 A.3d 1134
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1930 Referred in House (RFH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1930

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 12, 1994

                Referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to improve the 
     administration of claims and obligations of the Farmers Home 
                Administration, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Farmers Home Administration 
Improvement Act of 1994''.

SEC. 2. DELINQUENT FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION OBLIGATIONS.

    Section 331 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 
U.S.C. 1981) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subsection:
    ``(c) The Secretary may use for the prosecution or defense of any 
claim or obligation described in subsection (b)(5) the Attorney 
General, the General Counsel of the Department of Agriculture, or a 
private attorney who has entered into a contract with the Secretary.''.

            Passed the Senate March 24 (legislative day, February 22), 
      1994.

            Attest:

                                             WALTER J. STEWART,

                                                             Secretary.
```
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Julian Jones, * From the 358th District Court

of Ector County,

Trial Court No. D-45,744.

Vs. No. 11-16-00267-CR * January 26, 2017

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., 

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

 This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the 

appeal should be dismissed. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT KULDIP SINGH; e t a l., Pe titione rs, v. ERIC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 09-71810 Age n c y Nos. A077-829-737 A077-829-739 A077-829-740 M EM O R ANDUM *
On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Oc tobe r 15, 2013 * * B e fore : FISHER , GOULD, a nd B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s. Kuldip Singh a

nd his fa m ily , native s a

nd c itiz e ns of India , pe tition for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r de ny ing the ir m otion to re ope n. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for a buse of 

# FIL ED OCT 21 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).disc re tion thede nia l of a m otion to re ope n , N

ajmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th C i r. 2010), a

nd we de ny

the pe tition for re vie w. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in deny ing pe titione rs’ m otion to re ope n a s untim e ly

be c a use the m otion wa s file d ne arly five y e ars a fte r the B IA’ s fina l de c i sion, se e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c )(2), and pe titione rs fa i le d to de m onstra te c ha nge d c irc um s ta

nc e s in India

to qua l ify for the re gula

tory e xc e ption to the

tim e lim it for filing motions to re ope n, se e8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c )(3)(ii); N ajmabadi , 597 F.3d at 989-90. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

0 9 - 7 1 8 1 0 2
No. 12-8697.

#### Harrison *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
RS D5XR212Y 16 March, 2010 

David A. Hoyng 

Aviation Safety Inspector 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Flight Standard District Office 

5225S Loop 289, Suite 122 

Lubbock, Tx 79424-1319 

Dear Mr. Hoyng, 

Reference My request Letter Dated 15 Mar 10 and your e-mail dated 3/16/2010 9:04 AM. 

I am requesting Deviation from 14 CFR, Part 145, §145.103, (b). 

DBP has a pending contract to paint two B777 for United Airlines beginning approximately 20 

Apr 10. Please refer to the attached housing diagram for the B777. It involves nosing the 

aircraft into our Bay 1, the largest of our bays, for paint processes then backing the aircraft in 

for paint processes on the remainder of the fuselage and tail sections. 

Bay 1, is being temporarily modified to accommodate all the paint processes, for the B777, 

pending a permanent modification which is presently in works, reference attached drawings. 

Due to economic downturn several customers have significantly scaled back on paint schedules 

forcing us to seek other work in order to preserve employment. This contract will enable us to 

maintain employment for approximately 40 people for an additional two to 3 months. It also 

allows us to provide a valuable customer the services they need. Additionally, this provides 

revenue to this economically depressed region. 

Although a portion of the aircraft will remain outdoors all paint procedures will be conducted in 

a controlled environment (within the Hangar) at all times, much like a nose dock, widely used in 

the industry elsewhere. The area of the fuselage that transitions to outdoors will be protected 

by a heavy duty tarpaulin curtain that is semi-permanently attached to each door closest to the 

fuselage and wraps around the fuselage. The sliding permanent hangar doors will be braced to 

prevent inadvertent roll towards the fuselage, see attached. 

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. 

Best Regards, 

Richard Hammer 

Chief Inspector 

Dean Baldwin Painting LP 

Phone 575 347-4168 

Cell 575 420-1520 

FAX 575 347-2244 

richardh@deanbaldwinpainting.com
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 28499]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13830]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-178-002]


ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas 
Tariff

May 19, 1998.
    Take notice that on May 14, 1998, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) 
tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised 
Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets, to be effective May 
1, 1998:

Fourth Revised Sheet No. 1
Second Revised Sheet No. 9A
Ninth Revised Sheet No. 19
First Revised Sheet No. 45F

    ANR states that this filing is made in compliance with the 
Commission's Order dated April 29, 1998 in the captioned proceeding.
    ANR states that copies of the filing have been mailed to all 
affected customers and state regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-13830 Filed 5-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
2017-0185.

#### State ex rel. Seibert v. Richard Cyr, Inc.

Franklin App. No. 15AP-402, 2016-Ohio-8335.

Pursuant to R.C. 2710.06(B)(1), the court has been notified that the parties in each of the following cases have reached settlements. These cases are returned to the regular docket under S.CtPrae.R. 19.01. Within 60 days, the filing party in each case shall file either an application for dismissal or a notice of failure of settlement. Each case will be dismissed for want of prosecution if an application for dismissal or a notice of failure of settlement is not filed within 60 days.
|                                                                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                 
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                         
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                   
|View History:                                                                                    
|                                                                                                 
|Price of Freeport, TX Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Pakistan (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                 
|Price of Freeport, TX Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Pakistan (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                 

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 3.75   | 7.50   | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
#### Com. v. Torres 37

12/29/2015

579 MAL (2015)

37

. Justice EAKIN did not participate in the decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 105 A.3d 47
No. 12-8210.

#### Jones *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
|                                                                                               
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                       
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                 
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                 
|View History:                                                                                  
|                                                                                               
|Price of Liquefied U.S. Natural Gas Exports to United Kingdom (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                               
|                                                                                               
|Price of Liquefied U.S. Natural Gas Exports to United Kingdom (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                               

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | --     | --     | --    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 7.13   | 7.66   | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     | 3.87   | 5.77   | 5.31  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 5.78   | 7.79   | 12.06  | 7.66   |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
No. 12-8575.

#### Henriques *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### In the Matter of DeCostole Carting, Inc., Appellant, v The Business Integrity Commission of the City of New York, Respondent.

[768 NYS2d 317]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J), entered June 24, 2003, which, inter alia, denied the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination denying petitioner a waste-carting license, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The discretionary refusal to grant the license was within the Commission’s statutory authority and petitioner had no property interest in licensure or a due process right to a hearing in connection therewith *(see Matter of Daxor Corp. v State of New York Dept. of Health,*90 NY2d 89 [1997]; *Matter of Hollywood Carting Corp. v City of New York,*288 AD2d 71 [2001]; *Sanitation & Recycling Indus., Inc. v City of New York,*107 F3d 985 [1997]).

A review of the record confirms that there was a rational basis for respondent’s findings that petitioner, by participating in the mob-controlled waste cartel’s property rights system, failing to provide truthful information to the Commission and obstructing a 2002 investigation into alleged deceptive trade practices, committed anticompetitive racketeering acts, and that the Commission’s consequent determination that petitioner did not possess the requisite “character, honesty and integrity” for licensure was not arbitrary and capricious *(see*Administrative Code of City of NY § 16-509 [a]; *Toed Bros. v Trade Waste Commn. of City of N.Y.,*251 AD2d 160 [1998], *lv denied*92 NY2d 812 [1998]; *Matter of Hollywood Carting Corp. v City of New York, supra).*

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Mazzarelli and Ellerin, JJ.
No. 12-8912.

#### Ruiz Henriquez *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

GALEN D. BROOKS

, §

§ No. 5 2 0 , 201 6

Defendant Below, §

Appellant, § Court Below

— Superior Court of the

§ State of Delaware

v. §

§ Cr. ID No. 1206011471

S TATE OF DELAWARE

, §

§

P laintiff Below, §

Appellee. §

Submitted: November 22 , 20 16

Decided: February 14 , 201 7

Before STRINE

, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and SEITZ

, Justices.

O R D E R

This 14 th day of February 2017 upon consideration of the appellant’s

opening brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm, and the Superior Court record, it

appears to the Court that:

(1) In 2013, a Superior Court jury found the appellant, Galen D. Brooks,

guilty of multiple counts of Tier 5, Tier 4, and Tier 2 Drug Dealing , Drug Dealing

without a Tier Designation (hereinafter “drug dealing convictions”) and Tier 4 and

Tier 2 Aggravated Possession and Possession of Cocaine (hereinafter “drug

possession convictions”). When sentencing Brooks in March 2015, the Superior

Court merged nine of the drug possession convictions with nine of the drug dealing2

convictions and imposed sentence only for the drug dealing convictions, not the

drug possession convictions

.

(2) In Septem

ber 2016, Brooks filed a motion for correction of illegal

sentence under Superior Court Criminal Rule 35(a). Brooks claimed that his

prosecution and conviction for the multiple counts and different levels of drug

dealing and drug possession violated princ iples of double jeopardy. On September

27, 2016, the Superior Court denied the motion for correction of sentence as

untimely and repetitive and because a reduction of modification of sentence was

not warranted

. This appeal followed.

( 3 ) H aving carefully considered the parties’ positions on appeal, we

affirm the denial of the motion for correction of sentence , albeit on grounds

different from those relied upon by the Superior Court. 1 Brooks’ motion for

correction of sentence was fundamentally directed to the validity of his

convictions

, not the legality of his sentence. A proceeding under Rule 35(a)

presupposes a valid conviction. 2 The narrow function of Rule 35(a) is to correct an

illegal sentence , “not to re

- examine errors occurring at the trial or oth er

proceedings prior to the imposition of sentence .” 3 Brooks’ m otion for correction

1 Unitrin, Inc. v. American Gen. Corp. , 651 A.2d 1361, 1390 (Del. 1995) (noting that this Court

may affirm a trial court’s judgment for reasons different than those articulated by the trial court).

2 Brittingham v. State , 705 A.2d 577, 578 (Del. 1998).

3 Id. (quoting Hill v. United States , 368 U.S. 424, 430 (1962) )

.3

of sentence was not an appropriate means to argue the alleged double jeopardy

violations in his underlying convictions. 4

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is

GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice

4 See Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61 (governing procedure for a collateral attack on a criminal

conviction).
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-139000, No. 333-138998, No. 333-116998 and No. 333-44977 onForm S-8 and Registration Statements No. 333-133781, and No. 333-133432 on Form S-3 of our reports dated February 28, 2007 relating to the consolidated financial statements of NovaStar Financial, Inc. and management’s report on theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of NovaStar Financial, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006. 

 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

 

Kansas City, Missouri 

March 1, 2007
#### In the Matter of Alexander Z. and Another, Children Alleged to be Neglected. Anne Z., Appellant; Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent.

[52 NYS3d 861]

Appeals from order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Clark V. Richardson, J.), entered on or about October 7, 2015, to the extent it brings up for review a fact-finding order, same court and Judge, entered on or about August 10, 2015, which found, upon respondent mother’s default, that she neglected the appellant children by excessively consuming alcohol; and appeal from fact-finding order, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The children’s appeal is dismissed because they are not aggrieved by the finding of neglect against their mother *(see Matter of Geovany S. [Martin R.],*143 AD3d 578 [1st Dept 2016]; *see also*CPLR 5511). Although the children may have been aggrieved by the order of disposition, which placed the children into their father’s custody with supervision by petitioner agency for 12 months, the terms of the order have expired, and thus any appeal from the order is moot *(see Geovany S.,*143 AD3d at 578).

*422The mother’s appeal is dismissed because the fact-finding order was entered upon her default, rendering it nonappealable *(see*CPLR 5511; *Matter of Darren Desmond W. [Nirandah W.],*121 AD3d 573, 573 [1st Dept 2014]).

Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.
2011-0538.

#### State v. Davis.

Butler App. No. CA200910263, 2011-Ohio-787. On motion for order for relief pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 4.01. Motion denied.

O’Neill, J., not participating.