alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.11





 Exhibit 10.11 

Spousal Consent 

April 2, 2021 
 I, Wang Miao (ID card No.:
**), the legal spouse of Tang Peng (ID card No.: **), hereby unconditionally and irrevocably agree that the shares of LinkDoc Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (“the Company”) held by and registered in the name of Tang Peng, my spouse, will
be dealt with according to the arrangements under the controlling agreements (including the Amended and Restated Exclusive Share Purchase Agreement, the Amended and Restated Shareholder Voting Rights Proxy Agreement and the Amended and Restated
Equity Pledge Agreement) (“the Controlling Agreements”) signed by my spouse on April 2, 2021 with LinkDoc Information Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (“the Sole Proprietorship”) and other relevant parties. 

I further guarantee that I will not take any action in conflict with the above arrangements, including but not limited to claiming that the shares constitute
the jointly owned property of us as a couple. I hereby unconditionally and irrevocably waive any right or interest that may be granted to me by any applicable law in respect of the shares. 

I acknowledge that Tang Peng does not need my further authorization or consent to perform, further amend or terminate the Controlling Agreements. I undertake
that I will execute all the necessary documents and take all the necessary actions to ensure the proper performance of the Controlling Agreements (as amended from time to time). I agree and undertake that if I acquire any shares held by Tang Peng
for any reason, I shall be bound by the Controlling Agreements (as amended from time to time) and the Amended and Re-stated Exclusive Consulting and Service Agreement between the Sole Proprietorship and the
Company dated April 2, 2021 (the “Service Agreement”), and comply with the obligations under the Controlling Agreements (as amended from time to time) and the Service Agreement as a shareholder of the Company, and for this purpose,
once requested by the Sole Proprietorship, I shall execute the written documents in substantially the same form and content as the Controlling Agreements (as amended from time to time), and the Service Agreement. 

I further acknowledge, undertake and guarantee that in the event of the death, incapacity, divorce from my spouse or any other circumstances that may affect
the exercise of his shareholder rights in the Company, none of my heirs, guardians, creditors or any other person entitled to assert a right or interest in the shares of the Company held by my spouse will take any action that may affect or prevent
the performance of the obligations of my spouse under the Controlling Agreements in any manner or under any circumstances. 
 [There is no
text below, followed by the signature page of the Spousal Consent.] 












 [There is no text in this page, which is the signature page of the Spousal Consent of Tang
Peng.] 
  

			
	Signatory:	 	 /s/ Wang Miao



 
			
	Spouse’s name: Wang Miao
	ID card No.: **
#### CADY, Respondent, v. ROCHESTER RY. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department.

January 18, 1894.)

Action by Leroy Cady against the Rochester Railway Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order appealed from affirmed, and leave granted to appeal to the court of appeals on the ground that a question of law is involved which ought to be reviewed by that court.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED November 21, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-20646 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LUIS RODRIGUEZ-TERMINAL, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:04-CR-54-1

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Luis Rodriguez-Terminal (Rodriguez) appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation. Rodriguez argues that the sentencing provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Rodriguez correctly acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. atNo. 04-20646 -2- 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). Rodriguez also contends that the district court erred in imposing a sentence pursuant to a belief that the Sentencing Guidelines were mandatory, in violation of United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738, 764-65 (2005). In the district court, Rodriguez argued that his sentence was improperly enhanced on the basis of his prior conviction for a crime of violence, in contravention of Blakely v. Washington , 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). This court need not decide whether this objection preserved a mandatory-sentencing-guideline argument for appeal, as his claims would succeed even under plain error review. Under a plain-error standard, the defendant bears the burden of “establish[ing] that the error affected the outcome of the district court proceedings.” United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo , 407 F.3d 728, 732-33 (5th Cir. 2005)(internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 267 (2005); see also United States v. Cruz , 418 F.3d 481, 485 (5th Cir. 2005). In the instant case, the district court opined that in the absence of the Sentencing Guidelines, it would have imposed a lesser sentence than that called for under the Guidelines. Rodriguez has shown that this error had a substantial effect on his sentence. As a result, Rodriguez’s sentence is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings. See Cruz , 418 F.3d at 485.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

JUSTIN MICHAEL ST. ROMAIN,

Respondent,

Docket Number 2023-0184

CG Enforccment Activity Number 7666189

CONSENT ORDER

Issued: June 15,2023

Br: Honorable George J. Jordan. Administrative Law Judge

Appearances:

LT. SAM CRENSHAW

USCG MSU Baton Rouge

For the Coast Guard

JUSTIN MICHAEL ST. ROMAIN, Pro sz

For the Respondent

vs

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD,

Complainant,

I
CONSENT ORDERAPPROVIN G SETTLENIENT AGR-EEN{ENT

On June 7 ,2023, the parlies in this case submitted an Amended Motion for val of

Settlement Agreement and Entry ofConsent Order to be approved as a settlement of case

under 33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

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

reasonable and in substantial compliance with the requirements of33 C.F.R. $ 20.502

and

ORDER

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

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

full, final, and complete adjudication of this proceeding.

SO ORDERED.

Done and dated June 15,2023,

Seattle, Washington

George J. Jordan

Administrative Law Jr-rdge

United States Coast Guard

tis

tute

2
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-22-00194-CR 

 

MICHAEL DANIEL RODRIGUEZ, APPELLANT 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

On Appeal from the 207th District Court 

 Comal County, Texas 

Trial Court No. CR2020-095, Honorable Stephanie Bascon, Presiding 

November 2, 2022 

ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ. 

Appellant, Michael Daniel Rodriguez, appeals his conviction for aggravated 

robbery1 and sentence to thirty-five years’ confinement.2 Appellant’s brief was originally 

due August 29, 2022, but we granted Appellant’s appointed counsel two extensions to file 

a brief. By letter of October 3, 2022, we admonished counsel that failure to file a brief by 

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a)(3)(A).

2 Originally appealed to the Third Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the 

Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalizations efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.
2

October 28 could result in the appeal being abated and the cause remanded to the trial 

court for further proceedings without further notice. On October 28, 2022, Appellant’s 

counsel filed a third motion for an extension of time to file a brief. 

We deny the motion for extension, abate this appeal, and remand the cause to the 

trial court for further proceedings. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2), (3). Upon remand, the 

trial court shall determine the following:

(1) whether Appellant still desires to prosecute the appeal;

(2) whether Appellant is indigent;

(3) why a timely appellate brief has not been filed on Appellant’s behalf;

(4) whether Appellant’s counsel has abandoned the appeal;

(5) whether Appellant has been denied the effective assistance of counsel;

(6) whether new counsel should be appointed; and

(7) if Appellant desires to continue the appeal, the date the Court may expect 

Appellant’s brief to be filed.

The trial court is directed to enter such orders necessary to address the 

aforementioned questions. So too shall it include its findings on those matters in a 

supplemental record and cause that record to be filed with this Court by December 2,

2022. If it is determined that Appellant desires to proceed with the appeal, is indigent, 

and has been denied the effective assistance of counsel, the trial court may appoint him 

new counsel; the name, address, email address, telephone number, and state bar 

number of any newly appointed counsel shall be included in the aforementioned findings.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

U.S. Coast Guard 

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

CG-5800G (08/14)

Complainant: 

 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

v. 

Respondent:

For Docketing Center Use Only:

Coast Guard Enforcement Activity Number:

Mail FAX Express courier In Person Electronic Delivery

Mail FAX Express courier In Person Electronic Delivery

Type or print name Signature Date

Docket Number:

20 -

1) I hereby certify I have served the foregoing documents with the Coast Guard Representative by:

2) I hereby certify I have served the foregoing documents with the ALJ Docketing Center by:

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Type or print name Signature Date

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

The extension of time request relates to the:

Answer Hearing Appeal Other

Mail FAX Express courier In Person Electronic Delivery

3) I hereby certify I have served the foregoing documents with the assigned Administrative Law Judge by:

1) Respondent requests an extension of time from 

In accordance with 33 C.F.R. § 20.306, 

3) In support of the request for extension of time, Respondent states the following reasons:

to

2) The Coast Guard: objects to extension does not object to 

the extension

has not been contacted 

regarding the extension

 Privacy Act Statement 

The legal authority for the collection of information on this form is authorized by 46 U.S.C. Chapter 77 and 33 C.F.R. Part 20. The information provided will be 

used to advocate your position in this administrative proceeding. Unless part of mandatory discovery, submission of the information on this form is voluntary. 

You are solely responsible for the manner in which you want to present your own case. This document will become part of the official record, which can be 

viewed by the public. 33 C.F.R. § 20.903.
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

______________________

Nos. 06-1484 & 06-1501

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

ISMAEL ALFONZO-REYES and VANESSA MORALES-HERNANDEZ,

Defendants, Appellants.

______________________

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on January 25, 2010, is

amended as follows:

On page 3, lines 6-8, "Alfonzo was employed as a FSA loan

manager and Morales worked as a FSA contract employee in Ponce,

Puerto Rico." should be replaced with "Alfonzo was employed as a

FSA loan manager in Ponce, Puerto Rico and Morales worked as a FSA

contract employee in Arecibo, Puerto Rico."

On page 3, lines 8-11, "Morales had previously worked at the

law office of Efrén Irizarry-Colon ("Irizarry") in Arecibo, Puerto

Rico preparing FSA loan applications and earning a 4 percent

commission on the loans" should be replaced with "Morales also

worked at the law office of Efrén Irizarry-Colon ("Irizarry") in

Arecibo, Puerto Rico where she prepared FSA loan applications.

Irizzary charged a 4% commission on these loans and Morales

received a portion of the commission."

On page 3, line 19, "Director, to reveal" should be replaced

with "Director, and several other farmers to reveal" 

On page 4, line 2, after "the loans." insert "Morales would

receive a portion of the commission for her assistance in compiling

the loan applications." 

On page 4, lines 6-8, "appellants submitted FSA loan and
incentive applications bearing false information on behalf of

thirteen dairy farmers for alleged damage to various dairy farms

owned by the Toledo family." should be replaced with "appellants

provided false information on FSA loan and incentive applications

on behalf of at least thirteen dairy farmers for alleged damage to

various dairy farms, many owned by the Toledo family."

On page 5, line 19, "Morales" should be replaced with

"Alfonzo"

On page 10, line 16, "Counts 20 and 21 charged Morales and

Alfonzo, respectively," should be replaced with "Count 20 charged

Morales and Alfonzo"

On page 12, line 14, "submitting" should be replaced with

"assisting in the submission"

On page 16, line 14, "Alfonzo" should be replaced with

"Torres" 

On page 16, line 19, "the Arecibo office" to "Irrizary’s

office"

On page 16, line 20, "the Arecibo office" to "Irrizary’s

office"
# C_2021121EN.01004601.xml

| 9.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/46

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10194 — CDP Venture Capital/Generali Welion/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 121/04)

On 16 March 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10194. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10194. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52542-52543]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20389]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 11541]


Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Being 
Imported for Exhibition--Determinations: ``Afro-Atlantic Histories'' 
Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad 
pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for 
temporary display in the exhibition ``Afro-Atlantic Histories'' at the 
Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, in Houston, Texas; the National Gallery 
of Art, Washington, District of Columbia; the Los Angeles County Museum 
of Art, Los Angeles, California; and at possible additional exhibitions 
or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, 
further, that their temporary exhibition or display within the United 
States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered 
that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the Federal 
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6471; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a3d0c6c0d7cacccd9197969ae3d0d7c2d7c68dc4ccd5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cbb8aea8bfa2a4a5f9fffef28bb8bfaabfaee5aca4bd">[email protected]</span></a>). The mailing address is U.S. 
Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, 
Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made

[[Page 52543]]

pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000.

Matthew R. Lussenhop,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2021-20389 Filed 9-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### In the Matter of Lensy Buckhannon, Respondent, v Walter R. Kelly, as Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility, Appellant.

Memorandum: In each of these appeals an inmate charged with violating a disciplinary rule requested to be present when his witnesses were interviewed during a Superintendent’s proceeding. The respective Hearing Officers denied each request on the ground that the witnesses’ presence in special confinement units would jeopardize the security of the units or the safety of the witnesses. On these records, those reasons were rationally based *(see, Matter of Cortez v Coughlin,*67 NY2d 907, 909; *People ex rel. Bradley v Smith,*115 AD2d 225; *see also, Matter of Tracey v Coughlin,*122 AD2d 459). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Newman, J. — art 78.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of John J. O’Leary, Sr., Deceased. John J. O’Leary, Jr., Respondent; Glens Falls Insurance Company, Appellant.

— Harvey, J.

Petitioner was the beneficiary of a fund in the approximate amount of $28,000 while he was still legally an infant. His widowed mother was appointed guardian by Surrogate’s Court. Joint administration of the guardianship account with Surrogate’s Court was dispensed with upon the filing of a bond issued by respondent, Glens Falls Insurance Company. The fund was dissipated during petitioner’s infancy by the guardian’s repeated payments of money to petitioner for apparently unnecessary purchases. Petitioner sought relief against the bonding company for his mother’s indiscretion and moved for summary judgment, which was granted.

Respondent admits that the guardian breached her fiduciary duties by withdrawing guardianship assets over a one-year period without court approval. The only issue on appeal is respondent’s contention that petitioner should be estopped from collecting on the bond because he, during his infancy, was the beneficiary of the improvident spending of his guardian.

To the extent that estoppel is sought to be used to defeat protection statutorily afforded an infant, it is rarely if ever applied *(International Text Book Co. v Connelly,*206 NY 188, 196; 28 NY Jur, Infants, § 6, at 224 [1963]). The Legislature has provided for guardians to be appointed in certain circumstances to safely keep the property of an infant and to make sure that the property is not wasted *(see,*Domestic Relations Law § 83). Further, the Legislature has severely limited the uses to which an infant’s property may be put before he attains majority, including requiring court approval before *916any property may even be used to support the infant (SCPA 1713; *see,*Domestic Relations Law § 85; EPTL 11-2.2). Where a bond is posted, the same restrictions apply, but the control of the money is left solely to the guardian (SCPA 1708). Thus, the Legislature has seen fit to protect infants from improvident spending by requiring court control over their property or the posting of a bond.

Here, respondent posted a bond which released control of the property of decedent’s estate to petitioner’s mother as guardian. Respondent, therefore, accepted the risk that she might misuse the guardianship assets and that she would not obtain court approval for unauthorized uses of the funds. The risk included the chance that petitioner’s mother would allow petitioner to dissipate the estate. To allow respondent to assert estoppel against petitioner would defeat one of the major purposes in requiring a bond. Hence, we conclude that the order appealed from must be affirmed.

Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Main, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2448 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize a program of highrisk, high-reward research. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 19, 2015 

Mr. HARRIS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize a 

program of high-risk, high-reward research. 

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

3 SECTION 1. HIGH-RISK, HIGH-REWARD RESEARCH. 

4 Part B of title IV of the Public Health Service Act 

5 (42 U.S.C. 284 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 

6 the following: 

7 ‘‘SEC. 409K. HIGH-RISK, HIGH-REWARD RESEARCH PRO8 GRAM. 

9 ‘‘The director of each national research institute 

10 shall, as appropriate— 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2448 IH

1 ‘‘(1) establish programs to conduct or support 

2 research projects that pursue innovative approaches 

3 to major contemporary challenges in biomedical re4 search that involve inherent high risk, but have the 

5 potential to lead to breakthroughs; and 

6 ‘‘(2) set aside a specific percentage of funding, 

7 to be determined by the Director of NIH for each 

8 national research institute, for such projects.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2021290EN.01000301.xml

| 20.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/3

---

Withdrawal of notification of a concentration

(Case M.10288 — DH 13/RFR Immo4/Bürogebäude)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 290/03)

On 3 June 2021, the European Commission received notification (1) of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) (‘Merger Regulation’).

On 25 June 2021, the notifying parties informed the Commission that they withdrew their notification.

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 14 June 2021, p. 7.

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

---