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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### International Trade Administration 

          - [A-570-504] 

# AGENCY:

Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. 

# ACTION:

Extension of time limit. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

April 18, 2000.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Commerce (the Department) is extending the time limit for the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from the People's Republic of China. This review involves four respondents (Universal Candle Company, Ltd., Liaoning Native Product Import & Export Corporation, Tianjin Native Produce Import and Export Group Corporation, Ltd., and Rich Talent Trading, Ltd.) and covers the period August 1, 1998-July 31, 1999. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Martin Odenyo at (202) 482-5254 or Robert James at (202) 482-0649, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Enforcement Group III, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20230. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Because it is not practicable to complete this review within the time limits mandated by section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results until Wednesday, August 30, 2000. See April 6, 2000 Memorandum from Richard O. Weible to Joseph A. Spetrini, on file in Room B-099 of the main Commerce building. The final                           ( print page 20801)                        results of this administrative review will continue to be due no later than 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published.                 

This extension is in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act, as amended. 

Dated: April 6, 2000. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD Enforcement Group III. 

[FR Doc. 00-9688 Filed 4-17-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### In the Matter of Tamara Miles-Stallworth, Appellant, v Lakeshore Nursing Home, Respondent. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Submitted March 12, 2007;

decided May 8, 2007

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that appellant has failed to demonstrate timeliness as required by section 500.22 (b) (2) of the Rules of Practice of the Court of Appeals (22 NCYRR 500.22 [b] [2]). Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-17-00194-CR

MILLICENT RENEE WILSON APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 213TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 1416629D

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Millicent Renee Wilson appeals her conviction and ten-year sentence for 

aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a second-degree felony enhanced by 

a prior felony conviction. She pleaded not guilty to the indictment and elected to 

waive a jury. After the trial court found her guilty, she pleaded true to the 

enhancement paragraph.

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

Wilson’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a 

brief under Anders v. California, representing that “[t]he record in this case 

reveals no grounds that could be argued successfully on appeal.” 386 U.S. 738, 

744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Counsel’s brief and motion meet the 

requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record 

demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See id.; In re 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). 

Wilson filed a pro response to counsel’s brief, and the State filed a letter brief 

agreeing with appellant’s attorney’s assessment of the appeal.

Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on 

the ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, we 

must independently examine the record. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 

511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to 

withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, appellant’s pro se 

response, and the State’s letter brief. We agree with counsel that this appeal is 

frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that might arguably 

support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial 

court’s judgment.
3

/s/ Wade Birdwell

WADE BIRDWELL

JUSTICE

PANEL: KERR, PITTMAN, and BIRDWELL, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: July 26, 2018
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

|CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
|------------------------------------------------
|AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906              
|OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002               

The undersigned, Xiangqian Li, the Chief Executive Officer of
CHINA BAK BATTERY, INC. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

1. The Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2014 (the Report), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and

2. Information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operation of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this statement
this 27th day of January, 2015.

| | /s/
      Xiangqian Li       
| | -----------------------------
| | Xiangqian Li                 
| | Chief Executive Officer      
| | (Principal Executive Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to China BAK Battery, Inc. and will be retained by China
BAK Battery, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.

---
#### John Belcher et al. v. Ben R. Wilson.

A petition based upon a note should aver who executed or made and delivered it. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 1427, Note 537.)

The sheriff’s return must show that he delivered to the defendant a copy of the citation and of the petition. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 1433, Note 545.)

Where one defendant was not shown to be legally served and one was shown not to have been served at all, the entire judgment was reversed, although only two out of three prosecuted error.

*140Error from Wood. The case was tried before Hon. Charles A. Erazer, one of the district judges.

The facts are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the court. There were three defendants. Judgment having been rendered by default against all, two only prosecuted error.

*Armstrong £ Parsons,*for plaintiff in error.

Ho brief for defendants in error has been furnished to the *Reporter.*

Morrill, C. J.

—The petition in this case states two of the defendants, Belcher & Belcher, being indebted to Horton, their joint-and several promissory note in writing, and by which the said Belcher & Belcher promised to pay said Horton, &c. The petition states the indorsement of the note by Horton and requests judgment against all parties.

The sheriff’s return on the writ was, “Executed by handing John Belcher a copy of this citation, and accompanies this citation a certified copy of plaintiff’s petition.”

Horton was not cited. Judgment by default against all the defendants.

It is not alleged who executed the note, or in fact that any note was executed by those who are sued as makers. There is not that “ full and clear statement in the cause of action that is required by the statute.”

The service is also defective. The sheriff does not state that he delivered to the party in person a copy of the citation and a copy of the petition, as the statute requires, article 1433 of Paschal’s Digest, and in fact one of the defendants was not even thus defectively cited.

The judge must have taken the statement of some one that the citations were regular, instead of giving them a personal examination. Judgment reversed, and cause

Remanded.
---

Exhibit 99.1

Comprehensive Credit Facility Agreement of Maximum Amount
(CreditFacility Agreement) 
Entered into by and between
Shenzhen BAK Battery Co., Ltd (the Debtor) and 
Shenzhen Caitian Branch, Bank of Communications (the Creditor)
Dated June 28, 2010

Main articles:

- Contract number: 4431702010LE00000400;
- Maximum amount of credit facilities to be provided: RMB
      50 million;
- Term: from June 28, 2010 to June 28, 2011;
- Purpose of the loan is to provide working capital for the
      Debtor;
- In the event of occurrence of any of the following during
      the term of loan, the Creditor is entitled to demand repayment of loan
      principal before maturity:
  Making untrue statement and declaration;
    Breach of promise;
    Occurrence of other instances which endanger the safety
      of the loan provided by the Creditor;
- Making untrue statement and declaration;
- Breach of promise;
- Occurrence of other instances which endanger the safety
      of the loan provided by the Creditor;
- Remedies in the event of breach of contract include
      adjustment of the credit amount, suspension of credit, imposition of
      punitive interest and overdue interest, the call back of loan principal
      and interest before maturity and change the mode of
  payment.

Headlines of the articles omitted

- Definitions and explanations
- Prerequisite for using the comprehensive credit facility
- Procedure on using the comprehensive credit facility
- Declaration and Guarantee of the Debtor
- Obligations of the Debtor
- Information disclosure and security
- Disputation settlement
- Fee
- Attachment
- Validity
- Notification

---
(8 Misc. Rep. 510.)

#### PURDY v. NOVA SCOTIA MIDLAND RAILWAY & IRON CO., Limited.

(City Court of New York, General Term.

May 18, 1894.)

Assignment—Validity as Between the Parties.

An assignment of a claim by a corporation, executed by the president in the presence of the secretary, the corporate seal being affixed, is sufficient to protect the debtor in paying the amount to the assignee, and he therefore cannot question the validity of the assignment in an action by the assignee.

Appeal from trial term.

Action by Edward L. Purdy against the Nova Scotia Midland Railway & Iron Company, Limited. Judgment was entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before EHRLICH, C. J., and VAN WYCK and McCARTHY, JJ.

H. C. Andrews, for appellant.

Tyler, Pratt & Hibbard, for respondent.

EHRLICH, C. J.

The action was to recover for services rendered and materials furnished to the defendant by the New York Bank-Note Company in and about the engraving of certain bonds for the defendant. The claim was assigned by the bank-note company to the plaintiff. The evidence clearly established the performance of the work and furnishing of the material, and that $795, with interest, was due therefor. The assignment was executed *759by the president of the bank-note company, in the presence of its secretary, and the corporate seal of the company was affixed. The assignment was certainly sufficient to protect the defendant in paying the amount due to the plaintiff, and therefore the defendant cannot seriously question the legality of the transfer. Sheridan v. Mayor, etc., 68 N. Y. 30. It nowhere appears that the defendant wás entitled to the plates upon which the bonds were printed, and the bonds themselves were delivered and accepted. The verdict of the jury is satisfactorily sustained by the evidence, and finds every fact in favor of the plaintiff which is required to sustain the judgment, which must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-29-1999
<CASH>                                           8,392
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,992
<ALLOWANCES>                                       140
<INVENTORY>                                      2,700
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,885
<PP&E>                                         164,644
<DEPRECIATION>                                  52,975
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 231,874
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           80,873
<BONDS>                                        207,164
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (77,746)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   231,874
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               389,790
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  481,411
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   116
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,769
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (116,506)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    19,151
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (135,657)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (135,657)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
# C_2021372EN.01000501.xml

| 16.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/5

---

Special report 17/2021

EU readmission cooperation with third countries:

relevant actions yielded limited results

(2021/C 372/04)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that special report 17/2021 ‘EU readmission cooperation with third countries: relevant actions yielded limited results’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu.

---
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 11(i)

                           EAGLE USA AIRFREIGHT, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                                   (UNAUDITED)
              (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AND FOOTNOTE AMOUNTS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                       NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                            JUNE 30,
                                                                        1998        1997
                                                                      -------     -------
<S>                                                                   <C>         <C>    
Net income                                                            $15,524     $11,566

 Shares used in basic calculation:
   Weighted average shares outstanding                                 18,617      17,716
                                                                      -------     -------
          Total basic shares                                           18,617      17,716

 Additional shares for diluted computation:
    Effect of stock options (1)                                           705         898
                                                                      -------     -------
          Total diluted shares                                         19,322      18,614
                                                                      =======     =======

 Basic earnings per share                                             $  0.83     $  0.65
                                                                      =======     =======

 Diluted earnings per share                                           $  0.80     $  0.62
                                                                      =======     =======
</TABLE>

-------------
(1)      For the nine months ended June 30, 1998, calculated assuming exercise
         of options for 3,019,153 shares of common stock at prices ranging from
         $1.25 to $35.13 per share and assumed repurchase of shares at the
         average market price of $30.28. For the nine months ended June 30,
         1997, calculated assuming exercise of options for 2,319,270 shares of
         common stock at prices ranging from $1.25 to $30.63 per share and
         assumed repurchase of shares at the average market price per share of
         $26.14.
#### People *ex rel.*Streeter, Appellant, *v.*Fitzgerald, Respondent.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.*

May 2, 1890.)

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          39,875
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,439
<ALLOWANCES>                                       703
<INVENTORY>                                      4,612
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                61,734
<PP&E>                                         491,474
<DEPRECIATION>                                 123,536
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 439,187
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           67,586
<BONDS>                                        243,554
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                     105,726
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   439,187
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                99,599
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   78,848
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,505
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,246
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,608
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,638
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,638
<EPS-BASIC>                                       7.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     7.19


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Complainant

vs.

TAEQUAN CHRISTOPHER COKER

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket Number: 2023-0358

MISLE Activity ID: 

CONSENT ORDER

Issued: February 14, 2024

By Order of Administrative Law Judge Administrative Law Judge:

HONORABLE BRIAN J. CURLEY

Appearances:

For the Coast Guard

John Crow

Sector Virginia

For the Respondent

Taequan Christopher Coker
CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On January 31, 2024, 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.

__________________________________

Brian Curley

Administrative Law Judge

Date: February 14, 2024