alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.7


 


 





	Purchase order  	 	TMK Power Industries Ltd






 


 






 








	Destination	 	 	Supplier
	Corporate name	TMK Power Industries Ltd.	 	Corporate
name: Shenzhen Dabieshan New Energy Ltd.

Tel:

Fax:Business Representative:
	delivery date	 	 	 
	consignee	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	Delivery method	 	 	 
	Shipping	Delivery to the company	 	Buyer
	freight	Assumed by the supplier	 	Corporate name: TMK Power Industries Ltd.
	Payment	 	Address:No.159,Hua Wang Road,Dalang Street,Longhua
	Advance deposit	none	 	Tax ID:  440306731133261
	Payment Method	monthly	 	Opening Bank:  Shenzhen Development Bank Longhua
	Currency	RMB	 	Branch

 Account No.:  11002926283401
	Terms of settlement	negotiation	 	Tel:      0755-28109908-103
	other	Open 17% value-added tax invoice	 	Fax:      0755-28109420


 


 







	Material Name/Code	Specification Model	Quantity	Unit	Unit Price	Amount	Note	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	
        Exchange provision:

        1.
        Backup and excess: every time delivery must provide 1% spare parts, 1% spare parts plus the excess over the order quantity
        are without warehouse warrant, or regarded as gift and not included in payment.

        2. Delivery requirements: must be in strict accordance with the order delivery requirement, if there is any delay,a fine numbered
1% of the total amount of the order will be deducted every overdue day.

        3. Quality requirements: make
        incoming         material inspection according to the product specifications, drawings and packaging requirements confirmed
        by two sides and on         the basis of GB2828-2, appearance AQL= 1.0 performance AQC = 65.

        4. Treatment of the bad ones: A, the unqualified
        products shall be taken back within 7 days after inspection, our company shall not be liable for any overdue. B.the fees incurred
        in emergent choice shall be claimed according to the agreement signed by both sides.

        5. The goods shall conform to the requirements
        of the SGS.

        6. The outer packing must have RoHS mark.






	Confirm: 	Form compiled No.:TMK-PUR-R006
|   | /s/ Michael Beeghley                         |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|   | Michael Beeghley, Chief Executive Officer    |
|   | (Principal Executive Officer)                |
|   |                                         |
|   | Date: August 15, 2017                        |
|   |                                         |
|   | /s/ Jeff McGonegal                           |
|   | Jeff McGonegal, Chief Financial Officer      |
|   | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |
|   |                                         |
|   | Date: August 15, 2017                        |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Culpepper, Also Known as Pepper, Appellant. —

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Berman, J.), rendered February 16, 1983, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of from 15 years to life imprisonment, is unanimously modified, on the law and facts, to reduce defendant’s conviction from murder in the second degree to manslaughter in the first degree, vacate the sentence, remand for resentencing, and otherwise affirmed.

A review of the record shows that the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any intent by defendant “to cause the *623death” of the victim, Crawford Anderson *(see,*Penal Law § 125.25 [1]). Defendant stabbed Anderson while in the midst of a close physical confrontation which Anderson actively advanced. Although the People did disprove defendant’s justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt, there was no similar showing with regard to his intent to kill as opposed to an intent to seriously injure *(see,*Penal Law § 125.20 [1]). Since the facts support the latter but not the former intent, we modify to reduce the conviction to one for manslaughter in the first degree and remand for resentencing. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Sullivan, Asch and Bloom, JJ.
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-186545) pertaining to the LipoScience, Inc. 1997 Stock Option Plan, as amended, the 2007 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended, the 2012 Equity Incentive Plan, and the 2012 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of LipoScience, Inc. of our report dated March 27, 2013, with respect to the financial statements of LipoScience, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2012.





/s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Raleigh, North Carolina


March 27, 2013
#### PEOPLE v. WEICK.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 18, 1907.)

Proceedings by the people of the state of New York against Margaret Weiek.

No opinion. Motion granted. Order resettled.
EXHIBIT 32


                            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 Equitex, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"). I, Henry Fong, President,
Treasurer and Chief Executive Officer, 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 requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company,
     as of, and for the periods presented in the Report.


                                          /s/ Henry Fong
                                          ------------------------------------
                                          Henry Fong
                                          President, Treasurer and
                                          Chief Executive Officer
                                          May 19, 2005


A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO EQUITEX, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AND WILL BE RETAINED BY EQUITEX, INC.
AND SUBSIDIARIES AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS
STAFF UPON REQUEST.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Corporation.
 Date: January 31, 2006
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Bahman AtefiName:
    
    Bahman AtefiTitle:
    
    Chief Executive Officer
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2258 

To prevent a severe reduction in the Federal medical assistance percentage 

determined for a State for fiscal year 2006. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 11, 2005 

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama (for himself, Mr. COLE of Oklahoma, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. 

ROGERS of Alabama, and Mr. BONNER) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To prevent a severe reduction in the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for a State for fiscal year 

2006. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON SEVERE REDUCTION IN THE 

4 MEDICAID FMAP FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006. 

5 (a) LIMITATION ON REDUCTION.—In no case shall 

6 the FMAP for a State for fiscal year 2006 be less than 

7 the greater of the following: 
2 

•HR 2258 IH 

1 (1) HALF PERCENTAGE POINT DECREASE.— 

2 The FMAP determined for the State for fiscal year 

3 2005, decreased by 0.5 percentage points. 

4 (2) COMPUTATION WITHOUT RETROACTIVE AP5 PLICATION OF REBENCHMARKED PER CAPITA IN6 COME.—The FMAP that would have been deter7 mined for the State for fiscal year 2006 if the per 

8 capita incomes for 2001 and 2002 that were used to 

9 determine the FMAP for the State for fiscal year 

10 2005 were used. 

11 (b) SCOPE OF APPLICATION.—The FMAP applicable 

12 to a State for fiscal year 2006 after the application of 

13 subsection (a) shall apply only for purposes of titles XIX 

14 and XXI of the Social Security Act (including for purposes 

15 of making disproportionate share hospital payments de16 scribed in section 1923 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r– 

17 4) and payments under such titles that are based on the 

18 enhanced FMAP described in section 2105(b) of such Act 

19 (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(b))) and shall not apply with respect 

20 to payments under title IV of such Act (42 U.S.C. 601 

21 et seq.). 

22 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

23 (1) FMAP.—The term ‘‘FMAP’’ means the 

24 Federal medical assistance percentage, as defined in 
3 

•HR 2258 IH 

1 section 1905(b) of the Social Security Act (42 

2 U.S.C. 1396d(b)). 

3 (2) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ has the mean4 ing given such term for purposes of title XIX of the 

5 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.). 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL. 

7 Effective as of October 1, 2006, section 1 is repealed 

8 and shall not apply to any fiscal year after fiscal year 

9 2006. 

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>    1,000
       
<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                    OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                      JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                  1,206
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                             552
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                             1,459
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        3,578
<PP&E>                                  5,584
<DEPRECIATION>                          4,076
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          5,087
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     919
<BONDS>                                     0
<COMMON>                                  428
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                              3,680
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            5,087
<SALES>                                 5,215
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        5,215
<CGS>                                   3,244
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           5,210
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          5
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            46 
<INCOME-TAX>                               16
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        30
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                               30
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                             .01
                                  

</TABLE>
##### 



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 Annual Report of IPC Acquisition Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Lance Boxer, 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 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.

By:
    
    /s/ Lance BoxerLance BoxerChief Executive OfficerDecember 24, 2003
ex10-34.htm


Exhibit 10.34

 

CPI AEROSTRUCTURES, INC.

 

Non-Employee Director Compensation

Adopted December 2013, Effective as of January 1, 2014

(Amended June 2014 and December 2014)

 

Annual compensation for non-employee directors of CPI Aerostructures, Inc. (the “Company”) will be paid as a combination of cash and restricted stock units (RSU) as follows: Chairman of the Board, $250,000 (cash payment, $102,575); Chairman of each of the Audit and Compensation Committees, $180,000 (cash payment, $66,950) and all other non-employee directors, $75,000 (cash payment, $24,750). The number of RSUs granted is calculated based on the closing price of a share of the Company’s common stock on the date immediately prior to grant (with a maximum of 60,000 shares).

 

	 	
1.
	
RSUs are granted to non-employee directors serving on January 1st and vest in equal installments on the first day of January, April, July and October each year. 



 

	 	
2.
	
Equity compensation of a non-employee director starting his service at the beginning of a quarter (other than January 1st) will be prorated for the number of days remaining in the year. The director will be granted RSUs that vest in equal installments on the first day of April, July and/or October, as appropriate for the balance of the year beginning on the day of grant. Cash and equity compensation for a new director elected at the Company’s annual meeting will commence the ensuing quarter (July 1st).



 

	 	
3.
	
Quarterly cash compensation of a new non-employee director starting service during a quarter will be prorated for the number of days remaining in the quarter he starts; equity compensation will be prorated for the number of days remaining in the year. The director will be granted RSUs that vest on the day of grant with respect to the number of shares equal to the daily prorated amount of shares multiplied by the number of days remaining in the quarter he/she starts, with the remainder of the RSUs vesting in equal installments for the balance of the year on the first day of April, July and/or October, as appropriate. For example, if a new director starts his/her service March 1st, assuming annual equity compensation of 5,000 RSUs, the new director would receive 4,192 RSUs,1 with 4252 shares being fully vested and the balance of 3,767 shares vesting in installments of 1,255 shares on the first day of April, July and October.



 

	 	
4.
	
Any non-vested portion of non-employee director RSUs will automatically be cancelled if a director’s service terminates during the year.







 

 

 




1 5,000 shares/365 = 13.6986/day x 306 days = 4,192 shares (rounded to the nearest whole share). 

2 5,000 shares/365 = 13.6986/day x 31 days = 425 shares (rounded to the nearest whole share).
**Exhibit      32**

**COMMUNITY      BANKS, INC.**

**CERTIFICATIONS      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO **

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| /s/                Eddie L. Dunklebarger              |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Eddie                L. Dunklebarger                            |   |
| Chairman,                President, and Chief Executive Officer |   |

| /s/                Donald F. Holt      |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Donald                F. Holt          |   |
| Chief                Financial Officer |   |
**Exhibit 13.01**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Genetic Technologies Limited (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Alison Jane Mew, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(i)             the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii)          the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/   Alison Jane Mew    |                      |
|--------------------------|---------------------------|
| Name:                    | Alison   Jane Mew         |   |
|                     | Chief   Executive Officer |   |
|                     |                      |   |
|                     |                      |   |
| October 29   , 2014 |                      |

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) Cause No. 2:15-cr-72

)

ANTONIO GAMINO, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter is before me on the Findings and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Andrew P. Rodovich relating to defendant Antonio Gamino’s request to enter a

plea of guilty to Count 1 of the Second Superseding Indictment, pursuant to Rule 11 of

the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. (See DE 260.) Following a hearing on the

record on October 31, 2016, Judge Rodovich found that Gamino understands the nature

of the charge, his rights, and the maximum penalties; that Gamino is competent to plead

guilty; that there is a factual basis for Gamino’s guilty plea; and that Gamino knowingly

and voluntarily entered into his agreement to enter a plea of guilty. (DE 449.) Judge

Rodovich recommends that I accept Gamino’s plea of guilty and proceed to sentencing.

(Id.) Neither party has objected to Judge Gamino’s Findings and Recommendation. 

Accordingly, I hereby ADOPT the Findings and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge Upon a Plea of Guilty (DE 449) in their entirety. Defendant Antonio

Gamino is ADJUDGED GUILTY of Count 1 of the second superseding indictment, and

1
the sentencing hearing is SET for February 3, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. Hammond/Central

Time.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: November 7, 2016.

s/ Philip P. Simon 

CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1997, AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR
THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         30
<SECURITIES>                                   2,843
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,873
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,873
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<COMMON>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,038
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,873
<SALES>                                        7
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               87
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               66
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                21
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            21
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   21
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

SARAH ROSS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00361-TKS-SLC

)

PETSMART, INC. )

)

Defendant. )

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) if of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the

parties stipulate to the dismissal of this lawsuit with prejudice, with each party to bear her or its

own costs and attorneys' fees. The dismissal shall serve as a full and complete adjudication on

the merits.

Respectfully submitted,

Eilbacher Fletcher, LLP

s/ Patrick L. Proctor (w/consent)______

Patrick L. Proctor, Atty. No. 17509-02

803 South Calhoun Street

Suite 400

Fort Wayne, IN 46802

Telephone: 260.425.9777

Facsimile: 260.424.9177

proctor@eflawyers.com

Attorney for Plaintiff, Sarah Ross

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,

Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

By: s/ John A. Drake

John K. Henning, Atty. No. 25203-49

John A. Drake, Atty. No. 28534-02

111 Monument Circle, Suite 4600

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

Telephone: (317) 916-1300

Facsimile: (317) 916-9076

john.henning@ogletreedeakins.com

john.drake@ogletreedeakins.com

Attorneys for Defendant, PetSmart, Inc.

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cv-00361-TLS-SLC document 14 filed 05/16/17 page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 16, 2017 the foregoing was filed electronically. Notice of

this filing will be sent to the following parties by operation of the Court’s CM/ECF system:

Patrick L. Proctor

proctor@eflawyers.com

s/ John A. Drake

29837672.1

USDC IN/ND case 1:16-cv-00361-TLS-SLC document 14 filed 05/16/17 page 2 of 2
May 31, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

CITY OF HOUSTON, Appellant

NO. 14-10-00971-CV V.

SHAYN A. PROLER, Appellee

____________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of Appellee signed July 7, 2010 

was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find the trial 

court erred in part. We therefore order the portions of the judgment (1) dismissing for 

want of jurisdiction Appellant’s claim that the hearing examiner exceeded his jurisdiction 

by awarding overtime compensation and request for declaratory relief relative to this 

claim and (2) awarding Appellee attorney’s fees relative to Appellant’s declaratoryjudgment action are REVERSED and ordered severed and REMANDED for 

proceedings in accordance with this Court’s opinion.

Further, we find no error in the remainder of the judgment and order it 

AFFIRMED.

We order each party to pay its own costs incurred in this appeal. We further order 

this decision certified below for observance.