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

EXHIBIT 99a

CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Harry Miller, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-KSB for the period ended
December 31, 2002 of Medina Coffee, Inc.;

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 and 15d-15) for the registrant
and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 as of a date within 90 days
  prior to the filing date of this report (the "Evaluation Date"); and (c) Presented in this report our conclusions about the
  effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
  evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;


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 in the design or operation of
  internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
  record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for
  the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
  management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
  internal controls; and


6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have
indicated in this report whether there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

|Date: March 31, 2003 | s/ Harry Miller
    _______________________
    Harry Miller, Chief Executive Officer
|-------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Provide a separate certification for each principal
executive officer and principal financial officer of the registrant. See Rules
13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a).
# C_2021132EN.01000201.xml

| 15.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 132/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 132/2

---

Communication on the publication of the amounts of raw milk production as referred to in Article 149(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1)

(2021/C 132/02)

| Annual data (1000 t) |
| --- |
| Amounts of raw milk production ((**)) as referred to in Article 149(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 |
| 2019 | Cow | Ewe | Goat | Buffalo |
| BE | 4 351,00 | 0,00 | 44,00 | 0,00 |
| BG | 822,30 | 67,00 | 37,00 | 13,20 |
| CZ | 3 155,79 | 0,4  ((***)) | 2,7  ((***)) | 0,00 |
| DK | 5 615,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 |
| DE | 33 080,18 | 6,50 | 15,89 | 0,00 |
| EE | 820,80 | 0,00 | 0,70 | 0,00 |
| IE | 8 244,87 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 |
| EL | 659,38 | 944,30 | 355,76 | 0,00 |
| ES | 7 460,36 | 563,53 | 535,79 | 0,00 |
| FR | 24 930,81 | 321,44 | 656,74 | 0,00 |
| HR | 599,00 | 7,00 | 9,00 | 0,00 |
| IT | 12 494,40 | 493,91 | 62,34 | 249,45 |
| CY | 238,76 | 36,56 | 35,03 | 0,00 |
| LV | 978,90 | 0,00 | 2,50 | 0,00 |
| LT | 1 547,43 | 0,00 | 3,71 | 0,00 |
| LU | 421,26 | 0,06 | 2,91 | 0,00 |
| HU | 1 962,78 | 1,58 | 3,01 | 0,00 |
| MT | 41,27 | 1,91 | 0,93 | 0,00 |
| NL | 14 555,00 | 0,00 | 386,00 | 2,80 |
| AT | 3 781,34 | 12,19 | 26,52 | 0,00 |
| PL | 14 502,76 | 0,57 | 8,16 | 0,00 |
| PT | 1 972,87 | 72,66 | 26,63 | 0,00 |
| RO | 3 663,20 | 425,50 | 236,40 | 14,50 |
| SI | 623,02 | 0,57 | 2,05 | 0,00 |
| SK | 904,26 | 11,10 | 0,35 | 0,00 |
| FI | 2 374,36 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 |
| SE | 2 704,39 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 |
| EU-27 | 152 505,49 | 2 966,78 | 2 454,12 | 279,95 |

Annual data (1000 t)

Amounts of raw milk production ((**)) as referred to in Article 149(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013

2019

Cow

Ewe

Goat

Buffalo

BE

4 351,00

0,00

44,00

0,00

BG

822,30

67,00

37,00

13,20

CZ

3 155,79

0,4  ((***))

2,7  ((***))

0,00

DK

5 615,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

DE

33 080,18

6,50

15,89

0,00

EE

820,80

0,00

0,70

0,00

IE

8 244,87

0,00

0,00

0,00

EL

659,38

944,30

355,76

0,00

ES

7 460,36

563,53

535,79

0,00

FR

24 930,81

321,44

656,74

0,00

HR

599,00

7,00

9,00

0,00

IT

12 494,40

493,91

62,34

249,45

CY

238,76

36,56

35,03

0,00

LV

978,90

0,00

2,50

0,00

LT

1 547,43

0,00

3,71

0,00

LU

421,26

0,06

2,91

0,00

HU

1 962,78

1,58

3,01

0,00

MT

41,27

1,91

0,93

0,00

NL

14 555,00

0,00

386,00

2,80

AT

3 781,34

12,19

26,52

0,00

PL

14 502,76

0,57

8,16

0,00

PT

1 972,87

72,66

26,63

0,00

RO

3 663,20

425,50

236,40

14,50

SI

623,02

0,57

2,05

0,00

SK

904,26

11,10

0,35

0,00

FI

2 374,36

0,00

0,00

0,00

SE

2 704,39

0,00

0,00

0,00

EU-27

152 505,49

2 966,78

2 454,12

279,95

---

(1)  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

((*))  0,00: zero or less than 5 t.

((**))  2019 Milk Production on the farm EUROSTAT – NewCronos Products Obtained.

((***))  Communicated by Member State and/or estimated/calculated production.

---
Exhibit 10.90

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 22, 2009

Main contents

- Contract number: 81101200900001661;
- Loan principal: RMB 50 million;
- Loan term: from July 22, 2009 to January 21, 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

---
#### MACFARLANE, Respondent, v. CASS, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 23, 1896.)

Action by Peter MacFarlane against Charles W. Cass.

H. A. Taylor, for appellant.

D. H. Lyon, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

United States Coast GuardU.S. Department of Homeland Security

Search
Search

Search

-  Home    -  News Room             
  -  Reserve             
  -  Forcecom             
  -  Operations             
  -  Mission Support             
  -  Atlantic Area             
  -  Pacific Area             
  -  History 
-  Units    -  Organization             
  -  Coast Guard A to Z             
  -  Atlantic Area             
  -  Pacific Area             
  -  Force Readiness Command 
-  Leadership    -  Commandant’s Initiatives             
  -  Senior Leadership             
  -  Deputy Commandant for Operations             
  -  Deputy Commandant for Mission Support             
  -  Atlantic Area Commander             
  -  Pacific Area Commander             
  -  Reserve             
  -  Auxiliary 
-  Resources    -  CG Support             
  -  Legal      -  JoinCGJAG             
    -  Legal_Assistance        -  Find-A-Legal-Assistance-Lawyer             
      -  FAQ 
  -  Civil Rights             
  -  Work-Life             
  -  Administrative Law Judges      -  Virtual Hearing 
  -  Newsroom             
  -  Family             
  -  Library             
  -  CG Web Mail             
  -  Return 2 Service      -  FAQ 
-  Community    -  Art Program             
  -  Girl Scouts / Boy Scouts      -  Eagle Scout Recognition 
  -  Coast Guard Band             
  -  Coast Guard Cities             
  -  Honor Guard             
  -  JROTC      -  NEWS 
  -  Special Programs      -  Industry Academy        -  Contacts             
      -  2018 
  -  Trademark             
  -  Resources      -  History             
    -  CGC Eagle 
-  Mariners    -  National Vessel Documentation Center             
  -  National Maritime Center             
  -  National Pollution Funds Center      -  NRD        -  NRD_FAQs             
      -  Trustee_Links             
      -  NRD_DOCS             
      -  About_NRD_Funding 
  -  Boating Safety 
-  doing business		 
-  Join		 
-  Recruiting		 
-  contact		 
-  About		 

HomeHomeUnitsUnit Display

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Hawaii and the Pacific (D14) 

#### 

(808) 535-3333 - For maritime emergency use only 

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
FILED

September 13, 1995

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON 

 FEBRUARY SESSION, 1995

STATE OF TENNESSEE, )

)

Appellee, ) No. 02C01-9410-CR-00217

)

) Shelby County

v. )

) Hon. Joseph B. McCartie, Judge

)

MICHAEL RICHMOND, ) (Sentencing)

)

Appellant. )

CONCURRING OPINION

I concur with the results reached in the majority opinion, but I question

the need for the analysis it makes. Unquestionably, a community corrections sentence

does not necessarily involve either probation or a suspended sentence. However, 

although not raised by the parties, the real issue in this case is one that this court

recently resolved, relative to whether or not the Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of

1989 supersedes the sentencing provisions of T.C.A. § 55-10-616(c) so as to allow a

trial court to suspend all or part of a motor vehicle offender's sentence. In State v.

Ricky Fife, No. 03C01-9401-CR-00036, Blount Co. (Tenn. Crim. App. June 15, 1995),

this court held that the Reform Act supersedes the former provision and that all or part

of a motor vehicle offender's felony sentence could be suspended pursuant to T.C.A. §

40-35-303(a). It relied upon the reasoning in State v. Hicks, 848 S.W.2d 69 (Tenn.

Crim. App. 1992), in which this court reached a similar result relative to the offense of

driving on a revoked license. I agree with this court's position in Fife. Thus, both

probation and community correction sentences are available for the trial court's

consideration in this case.

_____________________________

Joseph M. Tipton, Judge
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD,

Complainant,

vs.

ANDREW PRICE RYS,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket Number: 2023-0454

CG Enforcement Activity: 7804068

CONSENT ORDER

Issued: January 11, 2024

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

Appearances:

For the Coast Guard

LT Megan M. Mahoney

USCG Sector Southeastern New England

For the Respondent

Andrew Price Rys, Pro Se
CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On December 19, 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: January 11, 2024
Exhibit 21.1



LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF HARBOR GLOBAL COMPANY LTD.



SUBSIDIARIES



|                                                        |  |              
|------------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------
|Company:                                                |  | Jurisdiction:
|Harbor Global II Ltd.                                   |  | Bermuda      
|HGC Ltd.                                                |  | Bermuda      
|HGCL Ltd.                                               |  | Bermuda      
|Pioneer Forest, Inc.                                    |  | Delaware     
|PREA, Inc.                                              |  | Delaware     
|PREA, L.L.C.                                            |  | Delaware     
|Pioglobal Goldfields II Limited                         |  | Guernsey     
|Closed Joint-Stock Company Pioneer Investments        |  | Russia       
|Pioglobal Omega, L.L.C.                                 |  | Delaware     
|Luscinia, L.L.C.                                        |  | Delaware     
|Theta Enterprises, L.L.C.                               |  | Delaware     
|PIOGLOBAL Real Estate Investment Fund                   |  | Russia       
|Pioglobal First Russia, Inc.                            |  | Delaware     
|Closed Joint-Stock Company PIOGLOBAL Services         |  | Russia       
|Closed Joint-Stock Company PIOGLOBAL Asset Management |  | Russia       
|Closed Joint-Stock Company Pioneer Securities         |  | Russia       
|PIOGlobal Corporation                                   |  | Delaware     
|Closed Joint-Stock Company SN-Projekt                 |  | Russia       
|Maltica Investments Ltd.                                |  | Cyprus       
|Anabasis Enterprises Ltd.                               |  | Cyprus       
|Eutychia Ltd.                                           |  | Cyprus       
|PGAM Ltd.                                               |  | Cyprus       
|PIOGLOBAL AM                                            |  | BVI
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 74 (Monday, April 17, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 20489]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9523]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-37,333]


S. Bent & Bros., Inc. Gardner, MA; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on February 14, 2000, in response to a worker petition 
which was filed by IUE Local 154-136B FW, on behalf of workers at S. 
Bent & Bros., Inc., Gardner, Massachusetts.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no 
purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, D.C. this 4th day of April, 2000.
Grant D. Beale,
Program Manager, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 00-9523 Filed 4-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
(August 24, 1987)

#### Alberta Bozick et al., Appellants, v Irene Chocianowski, Respondent.

In an action seeking to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Benson, J.), entered February 28, 1986, which, upon the defendant’s motion, made at the close of the plaintiffs’ case, dismissed the complaint for failure to make out a prima facie case.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the trial court that the plaintiffs failed to make out a prima facie case. The evidence was insufficient to show that the defendant’s dog exhibited vicious propensities of which the defendant was or should have been aware *(see, Appel v Charles Heinsohn, Inc.,*91 AD2d 1029, *affd*59 NY2d 741), and, accordingly, the complaint was properly dismissed. Mollen, P. J., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.
Sensitive Information in the Case File

Written by Unknown Author

Beware of the PII (personally identifiable information), SSI 

(sensitive security information), FOUO (for official use only) 

information, and LES (law enforcement sensitive) information that 

finds its way into a violation case file. Remember that inclusion of 

such information is often not “evidence” necessary to support an 

alleged violation. If it is not necessary, it may be omitted from the 

case file. But if you do include such information in a violation case 

file, know the policies concerning the public release of the 

information and comply with them to ensure that the civil penalty 

process may proceed without delay. Failure to comply will cause the 

violation case file to be returned for corrective action. 

Why? Because the charged party gets a copy of the violation case file 

and that means all information contained within the file will be 

released to the party. If you include information that requires 

authorization from the originator or other authority before public 

release, the violation case file must contain evidence that the 

information has received proper authorization for release. You 

should consult program managers, message traffic, and applicable 

manuals for instruction on handling these types of information: 

SSI is related to maritime security activities such as security plans, 

maritime security directives and certain NVICs. It also includes 

information obtained or developed in the conduct of transportation 

security activities.

PII is information about an individual that can be used to 

distinguish or trace an individual’s identity such as social security 

number, name, date and place of birth, biometric record data and so 

on. 
FOUO is unclassified information of a sensitive nature and which 

the unauthorized disclosure could adversely affect a person’s welfare 

or privacy, conduct of a federal program, or operations essential to 

the national interest. Generally release of this material requires 

authorization from the originator. 

LES includes materials that reveal law enforcement investigative 

methods or policies/procedures, reveal official law enforcement or 

regulatory functions, or reveal sensitive Coast Guard operations.
Exhibit 10.3







AGREEMENT TO WAIVE


CERTAIN RIGHTS UNDER


THE ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT


DATED AS OF MARCH 21, 2010


BY AND BETWEEN


GSC INVESTMENT CORP


AND


GSCP (NJ), L.P.












This AGREEMENT TO WAIVE CERTAIN RIGHTS UNDER THE ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”), dated as of March 21, 2010 by and between GSC Investment Corp., a Maryland corporation (“GNV”) and GSCP (NJ), L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (“GSCP” and, together with GNV, the “Parties”).   Capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed thereto in the Administration Agreement.


 


WHEREAS, the Parties entered into the Administration Agreement, dated as of March 21, 2007 (the “Administration Agreement”) whereby GSCP agreed to provide certain administrative services to GNV in the manner and on the terms set forth therein; and


 


WHEREAS, in return for such administrative services, GNV is obligated to reimburse the Company on the terms set forth in Section 4 of the Administration Agreement;


 


WHEREAS, the Parties agreed to renew the Administration Agreement for a one year term expiring March 21, 2011 (the “Renewal Term”);


 


WHEREAS, GNV wishes to waive its right to reimbursement under the terms set forth below;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and agreements contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby mutually acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:


 


Section 1.  Condition to Reimbursement.  The Administrator hereby agrees that, until the earlier to occur of (i) the expiration of the Renewal Term of the Administration Agreement and (ii) such time as the total assets of the Company (as computed in accordance with GAAP) exceed $500 million, the Administrator shall irrevocably waive its right to any and all reimbursements the Company is obligated to pay to it under Section 4 of the Administration Agreement.  From and after the earlier to occur of (i) the expiration of the Renewal Term of the Administration Agreement and (ii) such time as the total assets of the Company (as computed in accordance with GAAP) exceed $500 million, the Company shall reimburse the Administrator as otherwise set forth in Section 4 of the Administration Agreement.


 


Section 2.  Governing Law.  This Agreement is made and shall be governed and construed in all respects in accordance with the laws of the State of New York.


 




  





  











  




 




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the date first written above.


 




 



	
GSC INVESTMENT CORP.

	 
	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:	
 /s/ Seth Katzenstein

	 
	 	Name: 	
Seth Katzenstein

	 
	 	Title: 	
Chief Executive Officer and President

	 





 


 



 



	

GSCP (NJ), L.P.



	 
	 	 
	By:	
GSCP (NJ), Inc., its general partner

	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:	

 /s/ Eric Rubenfeld



	 
	 	Name: 	

Eric Rubenfeld



	 
	 	Title: 	

Senior Managing Director, General Counsel and Secretary