alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.13


 


	Sales contract      	        Contract No.




The buyer:
Zibo International Economic And Technical Cooperation Co., Ltd.


The seller: Shenzhen TMK Power Industries
Ltd.


 


Based on fairness and mutual interest
and concerted negotiation, both parties of the seller and the buyer reach upon the agreement to obey together


	Signing date:	Signing place:




 


	1.	product name,trademark,model NO.,quantity,amount
	 	 



	Product

                                                                                name
	trademark

                                                                                 
	Specification/Model No.	quantity	Unit price(Yuan)	Total amount(Yuan)	Delivery date
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Total RMB amount in words:


 


		2.	quality requirement, technology standard, the terms and
period of the seller’s quality assurance :1).IEC6195 1-2 and the buyer’s attached requirements to products(see the
attachment) 2).The seller is responsible for any quality problem.



		3.	Date of delivery:



		4.	Mode of transportation and destination and expense undertaking:



		5.	Fair tear and wear:



		6.	Packaging standard, the supply and take-back of packaging
items:



		7.	Acceptance standard, method and put forward dissent period:



		8.	Random spare, accessories quantity and supply method:



		9.	Settlement method and term:



		10.	Responsibility for breach of contract:



		11.	The way to solve contract disputes:



		12.	Other agreed items:



 


	The buyer:	The seller:
	Company name:	Company name:
	Company address:	Company address:
	Legal representative:	Legal representative
	Authorized agent:	Authorized agent:
	Telephone number:	Telephone number:
	Fax:	Fax:
	Opening bank:	Opening bank:
	Bank account No.:	Bank account No.
	Tax ID:	Tax ID:
	Post Code:	Post Code:


 






    	 



    	 



    

 


Attachment
1: capacity sorting and configuration requirements


 


Attachment
2: performance requirements


  


Attachment
3: packaging requirements
#### Erik Osberg, Appellant, v Raj Rajaratnam et al., Respondents.

[946 NYS2d 21]—

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered March 28, 2011, which, in this action alleging a breach of an employment agreement, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record shows that pursuant to the express terms of the subject employment agreement, which plaintiff executed while represented by counsel, plaintiff was an at-will employee subject to termination “at any time, for any reason, with or without cause.” Moreover, the bonus that he seeks to recover was expressly and unambiguously conditioned upon his working through the end of the relevant calendar year. Because plaintiff’s employment was terminated prior to the end of the year when defendant Galleon Group, LLC folded following an investigation for insider trading and the subsequent arrest of defendant Rajaratnam, plaintiff never became eligible to receive the bonus *(see Hooper Assoc. v AGS Computers,*74 NY2d 487, 493 [1989]; *Kolmar Ams., Inc. v Bioversel Inc.,*89 AD3d 493, 494 [2011]; *D’Amato v Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Discover & Co.,*268 AD2d 392 [2000]).

The record further demonstrates that plaintiff’s claims for breach of an implied contract and for fraud are not viable. “[A] contract cannot be implied where there is an express contract covering the same subject matter” *(Azimut-Benetti S.p.A. v Magnum Mar. Corp.,*55 AD3d 483, 484 [2008]), and plaintiff failed to provide factual support for the allegations that the statements made by Rajaratnam were fraudulent.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Saxe, J.E, Sweeny, Acosta, Freedman and Román, JJ.
<PAGE>
                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Louis E. Prezeau, the Chief Executive Officer and President of City National
Bancshares Corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)   the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period
      ended September 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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

Dated: November 12, 2002


                                        ___________________________
                                        Louis E. Prezeau
                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                        and President

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Edward R. Wright, the Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President of
City National Bancshares Corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)   the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period
      ended September 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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

Dated: November 12, 2002


                                        ___________________________
                                        Edward R. Wright
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        and Senior Vice President
* Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit,

sitting by designation.

** Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

___________________________

No. 01-30609 No. 01-30682

___________________________
GERARD MENDONCA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

TIDEWATER, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

__________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Louisiana, New Orleans

00-CV-2284-C

___________________________________________________ March 7, 2002

Before ALDISERT, * DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM: **

We affirm the judgment of the district court essentially for

the reasons stated by the district court in its Orders and Reasons

of March 21 and Ap ril 9, 2001 and by the magistrate judge in his

Minute Entry of April 18, 2001.Plaintiff-Appellant asserts an additional argument on appeal.

He now seeks to assert state law claims based on diversity

jurisdiction. Even if we were to consider this argument, raised

f or the first time on appeal, Plaintiff-Appellant did not all ege

f acts in the district court sufficient to trigger diversity

jurisdiction.

The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.
SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF

FINANCIAL OFFICER

Exhibit 32

Statement

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Sonic Foundry, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: May 2, 2011



|       |  |                                                                 |  | 
|------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|By:    |  | /s/ Gary R. Weis                                                |  | 
|By:    |  | Gary R. Weis                                                    |  | 
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer                                         |  | 
|       |  |                                                                
|By:    |  | /s/ Kenneth A. Minor                                            |  | 
|By:    |  | Kenneth A. Minor                                                |  | 
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer and Secretary |  | 



30
# C_2019172EN.01001501.xml

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/15

---

Appeal brought on 21 February 2019 by Ehab Makhlouf against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2018 in Case T-409/16 Makhlouf v Council

(Case C-157/19 P)

(2019/C 172/18)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Ehab Makhlouf (represented by: E. Ruchat, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant submits that the Court should:

| — | Declare the appellant’s action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the appellant’s action admissible and well founded;

| — | Accordingly, set aside the judgment of 12 December 2018 given by the General Court of the European Union in Case T-409/16, Ehab Makhlouf v Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

Accordingly, set aside the judgment of 12 December 2018 given by the General Court of the European Union in Case T-409/16, Ehab Makhlouf v Council of the European Union;

And, giving judgment itself,

| — | Annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 (1) and its subsequent implementing acts, in so far as they concern the appellant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 (1) and its subsequent implementing acts, in so far as they concern the appellant;

| — | Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds:

The first ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in that the General Court disregarded the applicant’s right to be heard prior to the adoption of new restrictive measures, as enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

The second ground of appeal, alleging an error of law and distortion of the facts in so far as the General Court disregarded the items submitted by the applicant in support of his action for annulment to demonstrate that he did not support the Syrian regime;

The third ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in so far as the General Court did not hold that Articles 27 and 28 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP, (2) according to which membership of the Al-Assad or Makhlouf families constitutes an autonomous criterion justifying the imposition of sanctions, were illegal and in so far as it, on the same occasion, reversed the burden of proof.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 141, p. 125).

(2)  Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 147, p. 14).

---
Exhibit 10.5


 


 


Annual Compensation of Non-Employee Directors


 


	 	 	2015	 	 	2014	 	 	2013	 
	Name/Position	 	Retainer	 	 	Retainer	 	 	Retainer	 
	Martin S. Friedman, Non-Employee Director	 	$	36,000	 	 	$	36,000	 	 	$	36,000	 
	Thomas M. Kody, Non-Employee Director	 	$	36,000	 	 	$	36,000	 	 	$	36,000	 
	John W. Edgemond IV, Non-Employee Director	 	$	36,000	 	 	$	36,000	 	 	$	36,000	 
	J. Randolph Babbitt, Non-Employee Director	 	$	36,000	 	 	$	36,000	 	 	$	36,000	 
	James L. Jadlos, Chairman and Non-Employee Director	 	$	48,000	 	 	$	48,000	 	 	$	48,000	 
	Michael G. Anzilotti, Non-Employee Director	 	$	36,000	 	 	$	33,000	 	 	$	-	 



 


The Non-Employee Directors will be paid the 2015 retainer in
quarterly installments in the month following the end of each fiscal quarter.


 


In addition to the annual retainer, the Compensation Committee
conducts an annual evaluation of the performance under criteria similar to that used for its executive officer cash bonuses for
payment of annual incentives to the Non-Employee Directors.  Such incentives are paid in the following year in cash, stock
option awards or some combination thereof.
Exhibit 10.1







Exhibit 10.1


First Amendment

to the

DTE Energy Company Executive Supplemental Retirement Plan

(Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2005)




Recitals




A. DTE Energy Company (the “Company”) adopted the DTE Energy Company Executive Supplemental Retirement Plan (Amended
and Restated Effective January 1, 2005) (the “Plan”) to enable the Company to attract and retain executives.



B. The Organization and Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of the Company’s Board of Directors is authorized to
amend the Plan.



C. By a resolution properly adopted on December 2, 2009, the Committee amended the Plan to provide for forfeiture of
unpaid Plan benefits upon a participant’s violation of certain covenants.



Plan Amendment




Effective December 2, 2009, the DTE Energy Company Executive Supplemental Retirement Plan (Amended and Restated
Effective January 1, 2005) is amended by adding new Section 7.04 as follows:



7.04 Forfeiture for Violation of Covenants.



(a) This Section 7.04 supersedes any conflicting provision of the Plan.



(b) This Section 7.04 applies to Compensation Credits and Discretionary Contributions, and related
earnings and losses, credited to a Participant’s Account as of any date after December 31, 2009.



(c) This Section 7.04 applies to the portion of a Frozen MSBP Participant’s MSBP benefit or a
Grandfathered MSBP Participant’s MSBP benefit (as computed under Section 5.01) in excess of the Participant’s
MSBP benefit computed as if the Participant voluntarily terminated employment on December 31, 2009.



(d) Any amounts described in Section 7.04(b) or 7.04(c) that have not been distributed at the time a
Participant or former Participant violates any covenant imposed on the Participant or former Participant under
a Confidentiality and Non-Competition Agreement or a Confidentiality and Non-Solicitation Agreement (as
determined under the Agreement’s terms) are immediately forfeited. For purposes of this Section 7.04(d), any
annual installments or annuity payments that have not been paid to a Participant or former Participant are
treated as not distributed and as forfeitable even if the Participant or former Participant has already
received one or more annual installments or annuity payments at the time the Participant or former Participant
violates a covenant described in this Section 7.04(d). The Participant or former Participant is required to repay to the Plan any
amounts paid to the Participant or former Participant after the time the Participant or former Participant
violated a covenant described in this Section 7.04(d).



First Amendment to January 1, 2005 Amended and Restated ESRP – Page 1 of 2





 


1









 











DTE Energy Company has caused this First Amendment to be executed on the 2nd day of December, 2009.



DTE ENERGY COMPANY



By: /s/Larry E. Steward                             


Larry E. Steward

Vice President, Human Resources




First Amendment to January 1, 2005 Amended and Restated ESRP – Page 2 of 2




 


2
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Northeast Area
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        
                Northeast Area Cities

                    Washington, D.C.
                            Newark, Delaware
                            Boston, Massachusetts
                            Beltsville, Maryland (BHNRC)
                            Beltsville, Maryland (BARC)
                            Frederick, Maryland
                            Orono, Maine
                            Geneva, New York
                            Ithaca, New York
                            University Park, Pennsylvania
                            Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania
                            Kearneysville, West Virginia
                            Leetown, West Virginia
                            Burlington, Vermont


                    Civil Rights & EEO Policy StatementsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






NEA Intern Pagesheadline bar NEA Student Interns
               NEA 2018 Interns
               NEA 2019 Interns
               NEA 2020 Interns
               NEA 2021 Interns
               NEA 2022 Interns


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
EXHIBIT 31.1


                         CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                           AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Yin Sen Wang, certify that:

1.   have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Weston Technologies
Corp. for the year ended December 31, 2004;

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 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 officers and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation, 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: March 12, 2005

By:/s/ Yin Sen Wong
---------------------------
 Yin Sen Wong, CEO
(principal executive officer)
#### LONDON REALTY CO. v. RIORDAN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 15,1912.)

Action by the London Realty Company against Elizabeth Riordan. No opinion. Motion granted. Order filed. See, also, 133 N. Y. Supp. 595.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. JOHN A. HANSON, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

See same case below: 59 *N. J. Super.*434.

*Mr. Franklin W. KieTb*for the petitioner.

*Mr. David D. Furman*and *Mr. William L. Boyan*for the respondent.

May 4, 1960.

Denied.
#### Edward J. Macleod, Respondent, *v.*John Maloney et al., Appellants.

(Submitted June 9, 1890;

decided June 24, 1890.)

Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the iifth judicial department, entered upon an order made on the first Tuesday in January, 1889, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.

*E. M. Ashley*for appellants.

*John E.*and *Cuthbert W. Pound*for respondent.

Agree to affirm on opinion below.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.