alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.5



V1.1 DATE OF   ISSUECERTIFICATE NUMBERRUN/TFR. NO.REGISTERNUMBER OF SHARE(S) HUTCHMED   (CHINA) LIMITED (Incorporated in the Cayman Islands with limited liability)   SHARE CERTIFICATE HONG KONG SHARE REGISTER THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE   UNDERMENTIONED PERSON(S) IS/ARE THE REGISTERED HOLDER(S) OF FULLY PAID   ORDINARY SHARE(S) OF NOMINAL VALUE US$0.10 PER SHARE IN THE SHARE CAPITAL OF   HUTCHMED (CHINA) LIMITED (THE “COMPANY”) AS DETAILED BELOW SUBJECT TO THE   MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF THE COMPANY. CODE: NUMBER OF   SHARE(S): GIVEN UNDER THE SECURITIES SEAL OF THE COMPANY ON THE DATE OF ISSUE   STATED ABOVE. DIRECTOR NO TRANSFER OF THE WHOLE OR ANY PORTION OF THE ABOVE   SHARE(S) CAN BE REGISTERED UNLESS ACCOMPANIED BY THIS SHARE CERTIFICATE. HONG   KONG SHARE REGISTRAR: COMPUTERSHARE HONG KONG INVESTOR SERVICES LIMITED,   SHOPS 1712-1716, 17TH FLOOR, HOPEWELL CENTRE, 183 QUEEN’S ROAD EAST, WANCHAI,   HONG KONG.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 ILEX Oncology, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark P.
Mellin, Chief Financial 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; and

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

                                    /s/ Mark P. Mellin
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Name:  Mark P. Mellin
                                    Title: Senior Vice President and Chief
                                           Financial Officer
                                    Date:  May 13, 2003

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
#### ESBERG-BACHMAN LEAF TOBACCO CO., Respondent, v. WORMS et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July, 1896.)

Action by the Esberg-Bachman Leaf Tobacco Company against Abraham Worms and others.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with 10 costs and disbursements.
EXHIBIT 32

1350 CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Shirley
Singleton, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Edgewater Technology, Inc. (the "Company"), and Kevin R. Rhodes, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that,
to the best of his or her knowledge:

The
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the "Periodic
Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and the information contained in the Periodic Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the Company for the period
covered by the Periodic Report.

|Date: March 29, 2005 |  | /s/SHIRLEY SINGLETONShirley Singleton
President and Chief Executive Officer                           
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 29, 2005 |  | /s/KEVIN R. RHODESKevin R. Rhodes
Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial and accounting officer)

---



QuickLinks
#### Hardy Pace v. Fountain Sollaman.

The stay law of 10th January, 1862, did not operate to extend the time in which writs of error might be sued out. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 5126 *et seq.)*The legislature only designed to suspend those statutes which extinguished or set up a bar to the right of recovering on the cause of action.

[ The court declined to discuss the constitutionality of the stay laws.]

Error from Jasper. The case was tried'before Son. A. *W.*0. Hicks, one of the district judges.

The opinion was upon the motion to dismiss the writ of error.

*C. Payne,*for plaintiff in error.

*A. W. 0. Hicks*for defendant in error,

moved to dismiss the writ of error.

Caldwell, J.

— The judgment in this case was rendered 13th September, 1860, anffthe writ of error sued out on the 7th September, 1864, more than two years after the rendition of the judgment.

To obtain a review of this case, plaintiff in error relies on section 4 of the stay law, which provides that, whilst *159in force, “the statute of limitation” shall not he computed. The question presented is this: Is the time (two years) in which a writ of error may be sued out a statute of limitation in the sense in which that term is used? "We think not. The legislature only designed to suspend those statutes which extinguished or set up a bar to the right of recovering on the cause of action.

This seems to be free from doubt when we refer to section 1 of the same act, which provides that it shall not be construed so as to interfere with the action of the Supreme Court in deciding “ all cases as now directed by law.”

Inasmuch as plaintiff in error is precluded by the statute, whose aid he invokes, as well as by the law in force prior to its enactment, we have passed upon it. Nevertheless we decline tq discuss the constitutionality of the act in question, as it does not necessarily arise.

Dismissed.
#### In re MOSS’ WILL.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department

June 15, 1894.)

Appeal—Decision—Opinion op Appellate Court as to Facts.

On reversal of a judgment in a case triable by jury, the appellate court will not express an opinion as to facts.

Appeal from surrogate’s court, New York county.

Application for the probate of the will of Sophia Moss, deceased. The application was denied, and proponent appeals.

Reversed.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and FOLLETT and PARKER, JJ.

J. W. Weed and Louis Marshall, for appellant.

E. A. Jacob, for respondent.

VAN BRUNT, P. J.

It is impossible, in the disposition which is to be made of the appeal in the case at bar, to discuss in this opinion, at any length, the evidence which is contained in the record, without giving expression to opinions formed by a consideration of this evidence, to which undue and improper weight may be given upon a retrial of this proceeding before a jury. It has become too much the practice to permit the presentation to juries of the opinion of courts upon given questions of fact, with which opinion the jury has nothing to do. The jury has to determine the questions of fact, governed by the impression which the evidence offered during the progress of the trial makes upon their judgment,—such impressions to be guided and controlled by the rules of law which may be laid down for their guidance by the charge of the court. The opinions *422of an appellate court in the discussion of evidence have no place in the jury box. But they are so often used for the purpose of influencing the judgment of juries that it has become hazardous to indulge in such discussion. In the case at bar we have determined, therefore, simply to state the conclusion to which we have arrived, and to give some expression of opinion as to the general character of the rulings of the court below in respect to the large mass of evidence which makes up the record upon this appeal,

It is undoubtedly true that the door was thrown wide open for the admission of evidence upon the trial of this case,—so wide open that a vast amount of irrelevant and improper material has been embraced within this record, and has probably influenced the mind of the surrogate in coming to the conclusion at which he arrived. The question which was to be determined upon the trial of the issues presented was as to whether the will in question was the will of the testatrix, and not as to whether, subsequent to the time of the date of that will, her sons robbed her. A consideration of the evidence in this case leads us irresistibly to the conclusion that the true issue which was involved was lost sight of, and that there never has been any judgment based only upon evidence pertinent to such issue. We think, therefore, under the circumstances, that a new trial should be ordered upon' issues to be framed in the order to be entered upon this decision, and the case sent to the court of common pleas for such retrial, with costs to the appellant, to abide the event. All concur.
EX-10.16





 Exhibit 10.16 

SPOUSAL CONSENT 
 I, Lin
Lizhen (ID No.: ***************), is the legally spouse of Shan Zebing (ID No.: ***************). I hereby unconditionally and irrevocably consent to the execution of the following documents (collectively the “Transaction
Documents”, including, for the avoidance of doubt, other relevant documents executed for the purpose of engaging in the transactions contemplated by the Transaction Documents, as the same may be amended from time to time) by Shan Zebing and
to the disposal of the equity interest in Beijing Xingengyuan Science and Technology Co., Ltd. (the “Company”) registered in the name of Shan Zebing in accordance with the following Transaction Documents: 

1. Exclusive Option Agreement among Shan Zebing, the Company and Wanleduo Network Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (the “WFOE”) on
November 12, 2018; 
 2. Equity Pledge Agreement among Shan Zebing, the Company and WFOE on November 12, 2018; 

3. Power of Attorney among Shan Zebing, the Company and the WFOE on November 12, 2018. 

I undertake not to make any claims in respect of the equity interest held by Shan Zebing in the Company. I further confirm that the
performance by Shan Zebing of the Transaction Documents and further amendment to or termination of the Transaction Documents do not need my further authorization or consent. I undertake to execute all necessary documents and take all necessary
actions to ensure that the Transaction Documents shall be duly performed. 
 I agree and undertake that if I acquire any equity interest in
the Company held by Shan Zebing for whatever reason, I shall be bound by the Transaction Documents and comply with my obligations as a shareholder of the Company thereunder, and for this purpose, upon request by the WFOE, I shall sign a series of
written documents substantially in the same form and substance as the Transaction Documents. 
 This Consent Letter shall become effective
from the date of signing. 
  

	
	Signature: /s/ Lin Lizhen
                                    
	
	Name: Lin Lizhen
	
	Date: November 5, 2018


 SPOUSAL CONSENT LETTER
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1986 

To repeal the Environmental Protection Agency’s most recent rule for new 

residential wood heaters. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 23, 2015 

Mr. ROUZER (for himself, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. GROTHMAN, Mr. 

RIBBLE, Mr. JONES, Mr. WALKER, Mrs. HARTZLER, Mr. GRAVES of Missouri, Mr. BISHOP of Michigan, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, and Mr. 

MEADOWS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To repeal the Environmental Protection Agency’s most recent 

rule for new residential wood heaters. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stop EPA Overregula5 tion of Rural Americans’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF RULE FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL WOOD 

7 HEATERS. 

8 The final rule entitled ‘‘Standards of Performance for 

9 New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 1986 IH

1 Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces’’ published at 80 Fed. 

2 Reg. 13672 (March 16, 2015) shall have no force or effect 

3 and shall be treated as if such rule had never been issued. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Angelina Sinicropi, Appellant, v Edward G. McCabe, as County Attorney of Nassau County, et al., Respondents.

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to compel the respondents to produce certain information pursuant to Correction Law article 23-A, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lock-man, J.), dated April 18, 1986, which denied her motion "to renew or reargue or otherwise vacate” an order of the same court, dated December 10, 1985, which denied her application.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The order appealed from is actually an order denying a *563motion for reargument. Since no appeal lies from an order denying reargument *(see, e.g., Vicat v Jamaica Hosp.,*110 AD2d 896; *Matter of Carillo v Axelrod,*83 AD2d 552), the appeal therefrom must be dismissed. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Spatt, JJ., concur.
Exhibit






ASSIGNMENT OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT                    Exhibit 10.32








FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned Assignor hereby assigns, transfers and sets over to Alpha Technologies Services, Inc. (Assignee) all rights, title and interest held by the Assignor in and to the following described contract:


Employment Contract by and between Mr. Andrew Zogby and Alpha Technologies, Inc. dated 6 October 2008, and subsequently renewed.


The Assignor warrants and represents that said contract is in full force and effect and is fully assignable.


The Assignee hereby assumes and agrees to perform all the remaining and executory obligations of the Assignor under the contract and agrees to indemnify and hold the Assignor harmless from any claim or demand resulting from non-performance by the Assignee.


The Assignee shall be entitled to all money remaining to be paid under the contract, which rights are also assigned hereunder.


The Assignor warrants that the contract is without modification, and remains on the terms contained.


The Assignor further warrants that it has full right and authority to transfer said contract and that the contract rights herein transferred are free of lien, encumbrance or adverse claim.


This assignment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties, their successors and assigns.


Signed this 6th day of December, 2018.





Assignor Alpha Technologies, Inc. John O'Rourke, Secretary/Treasurer
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Eagle Surgical Supply, Inc., as Assignee of Quincy Sinclair, Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>Citywide Auto Leasing, Inc., Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Korsunskiy Legal Group, P.C. (Henry R. Guindi of counsel), for appellant.Miller, Leiby &amp; Associates, P.C. (Melissa M. Wolin of counsel), for respondent. </p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Harriet L. Thompson, J.), entered November 20, 2015. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs), and denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment. </p><p>Contrary to plaintiff's sole contention, the affidavit submitted by the acupuncturist who was to perform the IMEs was sufficient to establish that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for the IMEs (<i>see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.</i>, 35 AD3d 720, 722 [2006]).</p><p>Accordingly, the order is affirmed. </p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: May 25, 2018<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Exhibit 99.1

                              CERTIFICATION OF THE
                           CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
                       ATLANTIC TECHNOLOGY VENTURES, INC.

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Atlantic Technology Ventures, Inc. on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Frederic P. Zotos,
Chief Executive Officer of Atlantic, 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 and 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 Atlantic.


                                         /s/ Frederic P. Zotos
                                         -----------------------------------
                                         Frederic P. Zotos
                                         Chief Executive Officer
                                         August 14, 2002
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2361 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authority to provide 

work-study allowance for certain activities by individuals receiving educational assistance by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 15, 2015 

Mr. TAKANO (for himself and Mr. WENSTRUP) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authority to provide work-study allowance for certain activities 

by individuals receiving educational assistance by the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Work-Study for Stu5 dent Veterans Act’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2361 IH

1 SEC. 2. WORK-STUDY ALLOWANCE. 

2 Section 3485(a)(4) of title 38, United States Code, 

3 is amended by striking ‘‘June 30, 2013’’ each place it ap4 pears and inserting ‘‘June 30, 2020’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
----

|   | 1. | The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |    /s/  Granger Cobb |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
|   | Granger Cobb                                  |
|   | Co-Chief Executive Officer                    |
|   | May 3, 2010                                   |

----
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1083 CA 14-00133**  PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

AMBER C. BLAIR AND MARK C. BLAIR, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,

V ORDER
ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

DEMARIE & SCHOENBORN, P.C., BUFFALO (JOSEPH DEMARIE OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS.
GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP, BUFFALO (BRIAN R. BIGGIE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Chautauqua County (Deborah A. Chimes, J.), entered September 26, 2013. The order granted the motion of defendant for summary judgment and dismissed the amended complaint.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs ( see Loafin’ Tree Rest

. v Pardi [appeal No. 1], 162 AD2d 985).

Entered: January 2, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                        Consent of Independent Auditors


  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-13875), pertaining to the Non-Plan Options, the 1996 Equity
Incentive Plan, as amended, and the Non-Employee Directors' Stock Option Plan,
as amended, of our report dated March 12, 1999 with respect to the consolidated
financials statements of Hot Topic, Inc. included in the Annual Report on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended January 30, 1999 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.


                                                       /s/  Ernst & Young LLP

Los Angeles, California
April 26, 1999
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD,

Complainant,

vs.

JACOB KANEHEOKEKAI MARTIN,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket Number: 2023-0430

Enforcement Activity: 7820035

CONSENT ORDER

Issued: December 14, 2023

By Order of Chief Administrative Law Judge: Hon. Walter J. Brudzinski

Appearances:

For the Coast Guard

LT Carolina C.T. Helmke

USCG Sector Honolulu

For the Respondent

Jacob Kaneheokekai Martin, Pro Se
CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On or about December 5, 2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval 

of a Settlement Agreement and Entry of Consent Order to the Administrative Law Judge for 

approval under 33 C.F.R. § 20.502.

I have carefully reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement and find that it is fair, 

reasonable, and in substantial compliance with the requirements of 33 C.F.R. § 20.502.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the record, it is hereby ORDERED that the Settlement Agreement 

is APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference. This Consent Order shall 

constitute full, final, and complete adjudication of this proceeding.

______________________________________

Hon. Walter J. Brudzinski

Chief Administrative Law Judge

United States Coast Guard

Date: December 14, 2023