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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 272 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 272

        Designating November 1, 2011, as ``National Jobs Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 20, 2011

  Mr. Pryor (for himself, Mr. Boozman, and Mr. Durbin) submitted the 
   following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
        Designating November 1, 2011, as ``National Jobs Day''.

Whereas people in the United States want to work and contribute to the national 
        economy;
Whereas the national unemployment rate in the United States remains stubbornly 
        above 9 percent;
Whereas the Office of Management and Budget Fiscal Year 2012 Mid-Session Review 
        of the Budget projects that the unemployment rate may stay above 8.3 
        percent in 2012;
Whereas almost half of unemployed people in the United States have been out of 
        work for 6 months or more and more than 25,000,000 people in the United 
        States are not able to find a full-time job;
Whereas, throughout the history of the United States, in times of crisis, the 
        private sector has come together and helped lead the United States 
        forward;
Whereas the private sector can lead the economic recovery by hiring workers from 
        the United States;
Whereas small and large businesses have the power to fuel growth and help bring 
        the United States back to normal levels of employment;
Whereas uhireU.S. is a national initiative to rally the business community in 
        the United States to come together in its own best interest to hire 
        1,000,000 workers by the end of 2011;
Whereas employing 1,000,000 more people will increase the demand for the goods 
        and services that businesses need to sell, and increase positive 
        sentiment toward businesses;
Whereas uhireU.S. is supported by many non-governmental organizations; and
Whereas it is important to designate a day for everyone throughout the United 
        States to focus on overcoming the human and economic costs of high 
        unemployment: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates November 1, 2011, as ``National Jobs Day'';
            (2) encourages businesses, starting on November 1, 2011, to 
        pledge to add not less than 1 unemployed worker for each 100 
        employees; and
            (3) supports the goal of the uhireU.S. initiative to put 
        new life into the economy by promoting a wave of business 
        ingenuity that puts 1,000,000 individuals who are jobless back 
        at work by the end of 2011.
                                 <all>
```
China BAK Battery, Inc.: Exhibit 10.- Prepared by TNT Filings Inc.










Exhibit 10.91

Summary of Loan Agreement Entered into by and between
Shenzhen BAK 
Battery Co., Ltd. (“the Company”) and Shenzhen Eastern Branch,
Agricultural 
Bank of China (“the Creditor”) dated July 23, 2009


Main contents


	Contract number: 81101200900001669;
  
	Loan principal: RMB 50 million;
  
	Loan term: from July 23, 2009 to January 22, 2010;
  
	Floating interest rate: annually 4.617%, rate adjustment in a 3-month
  cycle; 


	
  Interest accrued and settled per month, interest settlement day is the
  20th day of each month;
  

	
  Penalty interest rate for delayed repayment: 4.617% plus 30% *4.617%;
  

	
  Penalty interest rate for embezzlement of loan proceeds: 4.617% plus 50%
  *4.617%; 



	Purpose of the loan is to provide working capital for purchasing raw
  material of the Company;
  
	Advanced repayment of loan needs to be approved by the Creditor;
  
	Breach of contract penalties: correct the breach of contract in time
  limit; suspension of loan unprovided; release loan agreement, demand
  prepayment of loan principal and interest before maturity; imposition of
  punitive interest incurred due to delayed loan; imposition of punitive
  interest for embezzlement of loan; imposition of plural interest for unpaid
  interest; withdraw from any accounts of the Company the loan principal,
  interest and other fees; compensation for the Creditor’s expenses incurred due
  to demanding the loan principal and interest in case of litigation, etc.
  
	Supplemental: in the event that the Company repaid the loan in advance, it
  has to pay extra handling fee: advanced repaid amount * share months * 1%.
  


Headlines of the articles omitted:


	Loan arrangement
  
	Interest clearing of the loan
  
	Payment of the loan
  
	Rights and obligation of the Creditor
  
	Rights and obligations of the Company
  
	Interest penalty of loan
  
	Guarantee of the loan agreement
  
	Disputation settlement
  
	Validity
  
	Text
  
	Notification
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YUNQIN ZHENG,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-72936

Agency No. A088-484-829

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 13, 2013** 

San Francisco, California

Before: HAWKINS, THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Yunqin Zheng petitions for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals’

decision denying her claims for asylum and withholding of removal. We deny the

petition for review. Because the parties are familiar with the history of this case,

we need not recount it here.

FILED

AUG 16 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) adverse

credibility determination, which the Board adopted and affirmed. The IJ found

Zheng’s testimony that she worked forty-hour weeks inconsistent with her later

testimony that she worked seven days a week for eight or nine hours a day. Zheng

had two opportunities to explain this inconsistency but did not do so. Though

“trivial inconsistencies” cannot support an adverse credibility finding, Shrestha v.

Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010), this inconsistency about Zheng’s

hours was significant because much of Zheng’s testimony concerned her claim that

her work schedule prevented her from attending church more frequently. 

Therefore, we deny the petition for review on the basis of this inconsistency

without opining on the sufficiency of the rest of the IJ’s reasons for finding Zheng

not credible. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011) (“we must

uphold the IJ’s adverse credibility determination so long as even one basis is

supported by substantial evidence”).

Substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that Zheng failed to

establish a well-founded fear of persecution based on evidence or testimony

independent of her own non-credible testimony. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d

1014, 1021-22 (9th Cir. 2006).

PETITION DENIED.

2
oe..___ 6H 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 21-0390

RANDY LAEDEKE, DARLA PRENN, 

for 

THE ESTATE OF LILA M. LAEDEKE,

 Plaintiffs and Appellants,

 v.

BILLINGS CLINIC, and John Doe

Defendants unknown at this time,

 Defendant and Appellee.

SECOND

ORDER OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMENT

On May 31, 2021 Lisa Speare was appointed as Mediator under M.R.AppP., 

7(4)(c). She has since declined the appointment. IT IS ORDERED THAT the 

appointment of Lisa Speare is hereby rescinded.

Mary E. Duncan, whose name appears next on the list of attorneys desiring 

appointment as mediators for Money Judgments appeals which is maintained pursuant to 

M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby appointed to conduct the mediation process required by 

M.R.App.P., 7(5), and 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time periods set forth in M.R.App.P., 

7(5)(d) shall run from the date of this order of appointment.

A true copy of this order is being mailed to counsel of record for the parties, or to 

the parties individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof.

DATED this September 9, 2021.

Bowen Greenwood, Clerk of the Supreme Court

c: Randy S. Laedeke, David Patrick Whisenand, Lisa A. Speare, Mary E. Duncan

09/09/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0390
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bradley Dieffenbacher, Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 495]

— Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Wong, J.), rendered June 16, 2009, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court upon a finding that he violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of attempted use of a child in sexual performance. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), in, which she moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant’s assigned counsel pursuant to *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],*89 AD3d 252 [2011]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Hall, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.
Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-172 and Form S-8 No. 333-342)
pertaining to the Vanguard Airlines, Inc. 1994 Stock Option Plan
and the Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Vanguard Airlines, Inc.
of our report dated February 27, 1998, except for Notes 7 and 12,
as to which the date is March 20, 1998, with respect to the financial
statements and schedule of Vanguard Airlines, Inc. included in
the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
1997.

                                                /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

                                                ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Kansas City, Missouri
March 26, 1998
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

                            STATEMENT UNDER OATH FOR
                           PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


I, Kanwar J.S. Chadha, Ph., D., certify that:

         The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 31,
2003 of Entrada Networks, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information
contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January
31, 2003 of Entrada Networks, Inc. fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Entrada Networks, Inc.


                                              Subscribed and sworn to
                                              before me this 17 day of April



     /s/ Kanwar J.S. Chadha                           /s/ Gayle Bryant
-----------------------------------           ------------------------------
Name:    Kanwar J.S. Chadha, Ph. D.           Notary Public
Date:    April 17, 2003                       Seal
# C_2020095EN.01002901.xml

| 23.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2020 — Bilde v Parliament

(Case T-248/19) (1)

(Privileges and immunities - Member of the European Parliament - Decision to waive parliamentary immunity - Manifest error of assessment - Electa una via - Principle of ne bis in idem - Misuse of powers)

(2020/C 95/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Dominique Bilde (Lagarde, France) (represented by: F. Wagner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz and C. Burgos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of decision P8_TA(2019)0137 of the Parliament of 12 March 2019 to withdraw the applicant’s parliamentary immunity.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Dominique Bilde to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Dominique Bilde to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
JUNE 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           3,457
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,491
<ALLOWANCES>                                       911
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                62,026
<PP&E>                                         573,733
<DEPRECIATION>                                  62,560
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 646,290
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           58,728
<BONDS>                                        464,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                     111,483
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   646,290
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               248,558
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   97,849
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               143,092
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,514
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,456
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (14,353)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (5,526)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (8,827)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (8,827)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (71.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (71.34)
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 10.2**

 

AMENDMENTto WORK ORDER

 

ThisAmendment GASOW-STAR100606-00.A.005 to Work Order (“WO”), GASOW-STAR100606-00 effectiveas of April 1, 2009 (“Effective Date”), between StarTek USA Inc. (“StarTek”), a Delaware corporation,and AT&T Mobility LLC, (“AT&T”)a Delaware limited liability company, on behalf of itself and its Affiliates,amends the work order described below.

 

**RECITALS**

 

WHEREAS, AT&T and StarTek enteredinto a Master Service Agreement on October 1, 2006 (the “MSA”);

 

WHEREAS AT&T and StarTek executed WorkOrder GASOW-STAR100606-00 dated November 30, 2006 (“WO”) pursuant to theMSA to provide services to AT&T Mobility LLC;

 

WHEREAS AT&T and StarTek desire toamend the term of the WO;

 

NOW THEREFORE, FOR AND IN CONSIDERATIONof the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree to amend the WO asfollows:

 

1.  Section 3. “Term” of the WO is herebydeleted in its entirety and it is replaced by the following:

 

“3. ‘The Term of thisSOW shall commence on November 30, 2006 (“Effective Date”), and shallcontinue until midnight on June 30, 2009 (the “Initial Term).  The SOW may be terminated as allowed in theAgreement or in this SOW.”

 

2.               Except as amended by thisAmendment, the WO is not otherwise modified, revoked or superseded and remainsin full force and effect.

 

3.               This amendment maintainsservices pending approval of new work order.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties execute thisAmendment as of the Effective Date.

 

 
| **StarTek  USA Inc.** | ** **     | **AT&T  Mobility LLC by its authorized**     |
|-----------------------|----------------|--------------------------------------------------|
|                  | ** **     | **Representative  AT&T Services, Inc.** |
|                  | ** **     | ** **                                       |
| By:                   | /s/ A.L. Jones |                                             | By: | /s/ Jay Bishop |
|                  |           |                                             |   |   |
| Printed Name:         | A.L. Jones     |                                             | Printed Name: | Jay Bishop |
|                  |           |                                             |   |   |
| Title:                | CEO            |                                             | Title: | AVP — Contracting/Sourcing Operations |
|                  |           |                                             |   |   |
| Date:                 | 4-7-2009       |                                             | Date: | 31 Mar 2009 |

 

 

**ProprietaryInformation**

The information contained in thisAgreement is not for use or**disclosureoutside AT&T, StarTek, their affiliated companies and their third partyrepresentatives, except under written Agreement by the contracting Parties.

 

----
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2
                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT



         Pursuant toss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.ss.1350,
the undersigned officer of Renaissance Learning, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby
certifies that to the undersigned's knowledge:

         (1)  the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
                  ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the
                  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.


Dated:  May 12, 2003


                            /s/ Steven A. Schmidt
                            -----------------------------------------------
                            Name:  Steven A. Schmidt
                            Title:  Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and
                            Vice President


A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY ss.906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY AND WILL BE RETAINED
BY THE COMPANY AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS
STAFF UPON REQUEST. THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT ACCOMPANIES THIS REPORT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 AND SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE
FILED BY THE COMPANY FOR PURPOSES OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934.
Exhibit 99.1

CONSENT OF NATIONAL CINEMEDIA, LLC

Board
of Directors
Regal Entertainment Group
7132 Regal Lane
Knoxville, TN 37918

Members
of the Board:

We
hereby consent to the use by Regal Entertainment Group (the "Company") of the audited financial statements of National CineMedia, LLC as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2009 (and comparative periods) appearing in the Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 filed by the Company with the Securities and
Exchange Commission and any amendment thereto.

National CineMedia, LLC
By National CineMedia, Inc., its managing memberBy:

/s/ RALPH E. HARDY Ralph E. HardyExecutive Vice President, General Counsel and SecretaryMarch 17, 2010


---



QuickLinks
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Melvin Johnson, Appellant.

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the judgment convicting him of third degree grand larceny must be reversed because the court failed to instruct the jury *sua sponte*that the guilty plea entered by his accomplice could not be considered as evidence of defendant’s guilt. Defense counsel elicited this information on cross-examination to impeach the accomplice’s credibility. The question has not been preserved for our review and we may not reverse the judgment upon the law (CPL 470.05 [2]; *see, People v Thomas,*50 NY2d 467). Nor do we exercise our discretion to reverse in the interest of justice (CPL 470.15 [3] [c]). The accomplice testified on direct examination as to defendant’s participation in the crime and there is no reasonable possibility that defendant was denied a fair trial or would have been acquitted had it not been for the failure to give such jury instruction *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230; *People v Brown,*109 AD2d 1091, *affd*66 NY2d 997). (Appeal from judgment of Genesee County Court, Morton, J.—grand larceny, third degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Boomer, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.
# C_2019288EN.01006501.xml

| 26.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/65

---

Action brought on 10 July 2019 — Coravin v EUIPO — Cora (CORAVIN)

(Case T-500/19)

(2019/C 288/80)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Coravin, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: F. Valentin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cora (Marne-la-Vallée, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark CORAVIN– EU trade mark No 11 363 496

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 April 2019 in Case R 2385/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | by way of correction, dismiss in its entirety the action for a declaration of invalidity brought by the company Cora on 25 November 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

by way of correction, dismiss in its entirety the action for a declaration of invalidity brought by the company Cora on 25 November 2014;

| — | consequently, maintain the mark CORAVIN No 11 363 496 in its entirety as regards the description of the goods covered in Class 21, namely ‘Wine pourers; wine access devices; wine preservation systems; household or kitchen utensils and containers, all for use with wine’; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, maintain the mark CORAVIN No 11 363 496 in its entirety as regards the description of the goods covered in Class 21, namely ‘Wine pourers; wine access devices; wine preservation systems; household or kitchen utensils and containers, all for use with wine’;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---