alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.55

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

     I, Yao Baoxin a citizen of the People's Republic of China (the "PRC"), the
ID Code is, 310102197403263220 hereby irrevocably assigns Song Zhenian the
following powers and rights during the term of this Power of Attorney:

     I hereby assigns Song Zhenian to vote on my behalf at the shareholders'
meetings of Shanghai Weilan Computer Co., Ltd. and exercise the full voting
rights as the shareholder of the company as have been given to me by law and
under the Articles of Association of the company, including but not limited to,
the right to sell or transfer any or all of the shares of Shanghai Weilan
Computer Co., Ltd. held by myself and designate and appoint the directors and
the general manager etc of Shanghai Weilan Computer Co., Ltd. acting as my
authorized representative on the shareholders' meeting of the company.

     Such authorization is based upon the condition that Song Zhenian is acting
as an employee of Linktone Consulting Ltd. Shanghai and Linktone Consulting Ltd.
Shanghai agrees such authorization and designation. Once Song Zhenian loses his
title or position in Shanghai Linktone Consulting Co., Ltd. or Linktone
Consulting Ltd. Shanghai issues a written notice to dismiss or replace the
designated/authorized person, I will withdraw such authorization to him
immediately and designate/authorize other individual employed by Linktone
Consulting Ltd. to exercise the full voting rights on behalf of myself at the
shareholders' meetings of Shanghai Weilan Compute Co., Ltd.

     The term of this Power of Attorney is 10 years unless the early termination
of Operation Agreement jointly executed by Linktone Consulting Ltd.Shanghai,
Shanghai Weilan Computer Co., Ltd., Wang Wenlei and me by any reason, commencing
from the execution date of this Power of Attorney.


                                        [signature]
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Yao Baoxini

                                        May 12, 2006
Mark Christopher ROBERTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-95

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed August 31, 2018

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Sean Kevin Gravel, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Mark Christopher Roberts, Raiford, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Bonnie Jean Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this *Anders*1 appeal, we affirm the judgment and sentences. However, the order of probation contains a scrivener's error. Concerning count two, the trial court orally pronounced a sentence of 36 months in prison, followed by 24 months of probation. The written sentence reflects that sentence, but the order of probation states, "[t]he court hereby stays and withholds the imposition of sentence as to count ... two and places the defendant on probation for a period of twenty-four (24) months."

Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to correct this scrivener's error in the order of probation. *See**King v. State*, 201 So.3d 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (affirming an *Anders* appeal but remanding for the trial court to correct a scrivener's error).

AFFIRMED and REMANDED with instructions.

PALMER, EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.

1

*Anders v. California*, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967)
Exhibit 32.1

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 accompanying Amendment No. 2 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Dynamic
Response Group, Inc. (the Company), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Melissa K. Rice, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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 fully presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Dynamic Response Group, Inc.



|                     |  |  |  |                                                            
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  | 
|Date: March 11, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Melissa K. Rice                                        
|                     |  |  |  | Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial
Officer
Reginald S. WHITE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-2583

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 14, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
PANGEA PRODUCE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., etc., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. FRANO'S PRODUCE, INC., etc., et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2095

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

APRIL 12, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Justin BELZ, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3141

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 18, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Longwei Petroleum Investment
Holding Limited (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending March 31,
2008 (the "Report"), I, Cai Yongjun, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

> 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of
> operations.

/s/Cai YongjunCai
Yongjun, Chief Executive Officer

May 27, 2008
STATE of Louisiana v. Demarcus S. PAYTON

NO. 2017-KO-2171

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 21, 2018

*498Denied.
William RHOW, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4033

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 19, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
# C_2020123EN.01004901.xml

| 16.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/49

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9804 – Saudi Aramco Development/Baker Hughes/JV)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 123/14)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Saudi Aramco Development Company (‘SADCO’, Saudi Arabia), |
| --- | --- |

—

Saudi Aramco Development Company (‘SADCO’, Saudi Arabia),

| — | Baker Hughes Company (‘BHC’, United States), |
| --- | --- |

—

Baker Hughes Company (‘BHC’, United States),

| — | a newly created joint venture company (the ‘Proposed JV’, Saudi Arabia). |
| --- | --- |

—

a newly created joint venture company (the ‘Proposed JV’, Saudi Arabia).

Saudi Aramco Development Company (‘SADCO’, Saudi Arabia) and Baker Hughes Company (‘BHC’, USA) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of a joint venture company to be created (the ‘Proposed JV’, Saudi Arabia).

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares. SADCO and BHC intend to each purchase 50 % of the share capital of the Proposed JV.

2.

| — | for SADCO: exploration, production and marketing of crude oil and, to a lesser extent, production and marketing of refined products and petrochemicals; |
| --- | --- |

—

for SADCO: exploration, production and marketing of crude oil and, to a lesser extent, production and marketing of refined products and petrochemicals;

| — | for BHC: provision of integrated oilfield products and services for oil and gas development upstream, midstream and downstream, |
| --- | --- |

—

for BHC: provision of integrated oilfield products and services for oil and gas development upstream, midstream and downstream,

| — | for the Proposed JV: production and marketing of non-metallic/composite products for use in oil and gas applications. |
| --- | --- |

—

for the Proposed JV: production and marketing of non-metallic/composite products for use in oil and gas applications.

3.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.9804 – Saudi Aramco Development/Baker Hughes/JV

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---
Michael ZUPPARDO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. J. H. INVESTMENTS, INC., et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-2429

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
**Exhibit99.2**

 

Report of IndependentAccountants

 

 

 

Capital One Bank

11013 West Broad Street

Glen Allen, Virginia 23060

 

And

 

The Bank of New York, as Trustee

101 Barclay Street, Floor 8 West

Corporate Trust Administration — Asset BackedSecurities Unit.

New York, NY 10286

 

 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying *Report ofManagement on Compliance*, that Capital One Bank (the “Bank”), awholly owned subsidiary of Capital One Financial Corporation, complied in allmaterial respects with the requirements of Sections 3.1, 3.4(a), 3.4(b) and 5.2of the Asset Pool 1 Supplement dated as of October 9, 2002 to the Indenturedated as of October 9, 2002 between Capital One Multi-Asset Execution Trust(the “Issuer”) and The Bank of New York and Sections 4.02 and 4.03 of theTransfer and Administration Agreement dated as of October 9, 2002 among theIssuer, Capital One Funding, LLC, the Bank and The Bank of New York regardingthe Capital One Multi-Asset Execution Trust (collectively the “Agreements”), which were filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on Form 8-K on November 12, 2002,  for the year ended December 31, 2003.  Management is responsible for the Bank’scompliance with those requirements.  Ourresponsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about theBank’s compliance based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standardsestablished by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Bank’scompliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as weconsidered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examinationprovides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide alegal determination on the Bank’s compliance with specified requirements.

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Bank complied with theaforementioned Sections of the Agreements for the year ended December 31, 2003is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

 

 
|   | /s/Ernst & Young LLP |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Ernst & Young LLP    |
|   |                     |

 

March 23, 2004

 

----
Joao Batista Franca SAYAO, Appellant, v. KNIGHTSBRIDGE BUSINESS NETWORK, INC., Appellee.

No. 3D17-1543

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed July 11, 2018

Michael J. Lascelle, P.A. and Jeffrey S. Greenhaus, for appellant.

Kravitz & Guerra, and Timothy W. Ross ; Roger M. Dunetz, for appellee.

Before SALTER, LOGUE and LUCK, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SALTER and LOGUE, JJ., concur.

LUCK, J., dissenting.

I would reverse and remand. *See**JVN Holdings, Inc. v. Am. Const. & Repairs, LLC*, 185 So.3d 599, 601 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) ("[R]efusal to allow an amendment is an abuse of the trial court's discretion unless it clearly appears that allowing the amendment would prejudice the opposing party, the privilege to amend has been abused, or amendment would be futile." (quotation omitted) ).
Michael J. FIELDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-737

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 20, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

CASE NO.: DA 23-0575

__________________________________

Rikki Held, et al.,

Plaintiffs/Appellees,

-vsState of Montana, et al.,

Defendants/Appellants.

__________________________________________________________________

ORDER GRANTING THE FORMER JUSTICES’ MOTION FOR LEAVE 

TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF 

__________________________________________________________________

Pursuant to the Unopposed Motion by the Former Justices for leave to file an 

Amicus Curiae Brief and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said parties shall file their Amicus brief on 

or before March 14, 2024.

Electronically dated and signed below.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 12 2024

03/12/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0575
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Declination

Filters

              - science_science(3)
              - products_publications(60)
              - multimedia_before_after(1)
              - multimedia_image(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(2)
              - multimedia_video(6)
              - multimedia_video-149194(3)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149195(3)
              - news_news-149245(3)
              - news_news-149248(3)

## By Location

              - alaska(2)
              - (-)arizona(3)
              - california(1)
              - florida(6)
              - hawaii(3)
              - idaho(1)
              - maryland(1)
              - montana(1)
              - nevada(1)
              - new mexico(1)
              - puerto rico(2)
              - south dakota(1)
              - utah(2)
              - washington(1)
              - wisconsin(1)
              - wyoming(3)

## By Year

Featured Films and Shorts        July 30, 2017        A Record of Change: Science and Elder Observations on the Navajo N.

Featured Films and Shorts        February 21, 2010        The Heat is On: Desert Tortoises and Survival (Full video)

Featured Films and Shorts        July 31, 2017        Historic Context of the Continuous Slope Area Method
# C_2020428EN.01000101.xml

| 11.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 428/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 428/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10031 — FSI/WTI/MEL)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 428/01)

On 3 December 2020, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M10031. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M10031. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
Michael Lee DANIELS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-552

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed August 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
----

|                                                                             |   | December 31, |        |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------|-------------|
| (In thousands of Pesos except ratio data)                                        |   | 2016         |        |   | 2015 |   |   | 2014 |   |   | 2013 |   |   | 2012 |   |
| Shares at the end of period                                                      |   |         | 102,182,841 |   |   |   | 102,182,841 |   |   |   | 102,182,841 |   |   |   | 102,182,841 |   |   |   | 102,182,841 |   |
| Yearly weighted average shares                                                   |   |         | 102,182,841 |   |   |   | 102,182,841 |   |   |   | 102,182,841 |   |   |   | 102,182,841 |   |   |   | 102,182,841 |   |
| Net (Loss) Income from continuing operations                                     |   |         | (506,564    | ) |   |   | (1,000,405 | ) |   |   | (465,019 | ) |   |   | (526,536 | ) |   |   | (648,434 | ) |
| Net (Loss) Income from discontinued operations                                   |   |         | --          |   |   |   | (18,465 | ) |   |   | (49,462 | ) |   |   | (24,885 | ) |   |   | (132,682 | ) |
| Net (Loss) Income for the year Attributable to Stockholders of Grupo TMM, S.A.B. |   |         | (508,044    | ) |   |   | (1,016,620 | ) |   |   | (516,902 | ) |   |   | (556,406 | ) |   |   | (786,454 | ) |
| (Loss) Earnings per share from continuing operations                             |   |         | (4.957      | ) |   |   | (9.790 | ) |   |   | (4.551 | ) |   |   | (5.153 | ) |   |   | (6.346 | ) |
| (Loss) Earnings per share from discontinued operations...                        |   |         | --          |   |   |   | (0.181 | ) |   |   | (0.484 | ) |   |   | (0.244 | ) |   |   | (1.298 | ) |
| (Loss) Earnings per share Attributable to Stockholders of Grupo TMM, S.A.B.      |   |         | (4.972      | ) |   |   | (9.949 | ) |   |   | (5.059 | ) |   |   | (5.445 | ) |   |   | (7.697 | ) |

----
John H. PASCHAL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4840

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 22, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T GR E GO R Y T YR E E B R OWN, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. D E A N M A S O N , G ri evance Prog ra m S p e c ia lis t, D O C ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 36038 D. C . No . 2 : 0 5 - c v - 0 5 0 7 1 - R HW ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe E a s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on R obe rtH . W ha l e y , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d A pr i l 20, 2011 ** B e f o r e : R Y M E R , T H O M A S , a n d P A E Z , C ir c u it J u d g e s . G r e gory T y r e e B r ow n, aW a s hi ngt on s t a t e pr i s one r , appe a l s pr o s e f r om the d i s tr i c tc o u rt ’ s j u d g me n tr e q u i r i n g e a c h p a rtyt o b e a ri t s o w n c o s t s i n h i s 4 2 U . S. C. § 1983 a c t i on a l l e gi ng tha thi s pe r s ona l pr ope rtyw a s c onf i s c a t e d i n vi ol a t i on of

the 

# FI LED MA Y03 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 36038

F i r s tA m e ndm e nt . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de n o v o th e le g a l q u e s tio n o f w h e th e rap a rtyw a s th e p r e v a ilin g p a rty , Ki m brou gh v. Ca lifo rn ia , 609 F . 3d 1027, 1031 ( 9th C i r . 2010) , and f ora n abus e of

di s c r e t i on the d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e c is io n r e g a r d in g c o s ts , D a w s o n v . C ityo f Se a ttle , 435 F . 3d 1054, 1 0 7 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . W e a f f irm . T he di s tr i c tc ourte nt e r e d j udgm e ntf orde f e nda nt s on B r ow n’ s c l a i m s f or com pensat ory and pu ni t i ve dam ages and d i sm i ss ed B row n’ s c l ai m for dec l ar at ory a n d in ju n c tiv e r e lie f

a s m o o t. A s ar e s u lt, B r o w n w a s n o t ap r e v a ilin g p a rty , se e B u ckh a n n o n B d. a n d

Ca re H o m e, In c. v. W

. V a . D ep ’t o f H ea l th & H

u m a n R es. , 5 3 2 U .S . 5 9 8 , 6 0 5 ( 2 0 0 1 ) ( p a rtyw h o d o e s n o t o b ta in ju d ic ia l r e lie f is n o t a pr e va i l i ng pa rty , e ve n i f pa rty a c hi e ve s i t s de s i r e d r e s ul tbe c aus e the com m ence m entof the l aw sui tcauses the defendant s t o v ol un t ar i l y a l t ercond uct ), a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt w a s n o t r e q u ir e d to e x p la in its o r d e rth a t e a c h p a rtyb e a rits o w n co st s, se e A s s ’ n o

f Mex ic a n -A m . E du c a to rs v . Ca lifo rn ia , 231 F . 3d 572, 591- 9 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( ad is tr ic t c o u rt m u s t o n lys p e c if yits r e a s o n s f

o rd e n y in g c o s ts to ap r e v a ilin g p a rtyu n d e rF e d . R . C iv . P . 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) ) . AF F I RME D.