alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
cbim_ex107.htm

EXHIBIT 10.7
  
 Contract for Sale of Goods
  
 This Contract for Sale of Goods is made this 18 day of October, 2017 by and between New Universe Industrial Co. Ltd., China (“Seller”) and CASTLE BRIDGE IMPACT MEDIA INC, 3 Banyatelep, Visegrad 2025 Hungary (“Buyer”), for the purchase of the goods made by Seller. 
  
 1. Term. This Contract shall begin on October 18th, 2017, and end by October 30th, 2018, unless the parties agree otherwise. 
  
 2. Delivery. Buyer will give Seller 60 days’ advance notice regarding the quantity requested for delivery. Upon receipt of the request for delivery, Seller will arrange for delivery through a carrier chosen by Seller, the costs of which shall be F.O.B. 
  
 3 Appointment. Buyer hereby appoints Supplier, and Supplier accepts such appointment, to act as a non-exclusive supplier of the Products to buyer.
  
 4. Prices. The prices paid by buyer to seller for Products shall initially be as set forth in agreement between seller and buyer. Buyer shall have the right to purchase products at item prices. Prices are exclusive of all taxes, insurance, and shipping and handling charges, which are buyer’s sole responsibility.
  
 5. Acceptance. Buyer will have the right to inspect the goods upon receipt, Buyer must give notice to Seller of any claim for damages on account of condition, quality, or grade of the goods, and Buyer must specify the basis of the claim in detail. Failure of Buyer to comply with these conditions will constitute irrevocable acceptance of the goods by Buyer. All notices between the parties must be in writing and delivered by courier or by certified mail, return receipt requested. 
  
 6. Confidentiality. Each of the parties hereto agrees to hold confidential and proprietary information and trade secrets obtained from the other, and designated as such in writing by the disclosing party, in confidence and not to use or disclose such confidential and proprietary information and trade secrets to third parties without the consent of the other party, except that each of parties may disclose such information to their respective employees and agents who need to know such information for the purposes of operating their respective businesses. The parties agree that the provisions contained in this paragraph shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
  
 7. Warranty. Seller warrants that the goods sold hereunder are new and free from substantive defects in workmanship and materials. Seller's liability under the foregoing warranty is limited to replacement of goods or repair of defects or refund of the purchase price at Seller's sole option. No other warranty, express or implied, is made by Seller, and none shall be imputed or presumed. 
  
 8. Governing Law. This Contract shall be governed by the laws of the State of NV. Any disputes hereunder will be heard in the appropriate federal and state courts located in NV. 
  
 Buyer 
 /s/ Mester Frigyes 
  
 Seller
 /s/ Kathy 10.19.2017
# C_2011319EN.01000601.xml

| 29.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Leuven (Belgium)) — Olivier Halley, Julie Halley, Marie Halley v Belgische Staat

(Case C-132/10) (1)

1

(Direct taxation - Free movement of capital - Article 63 TFEU - Inheritance tax on registered shares - Limitation period for the valuation of shares in non-resident companies longer than that applicable for resident companies - Restriction - Justification)

2011/C 319/09

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Leuven

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Olivier Halley, Julie Halley, Marie Halley

Applicants:

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Leuven — Interpretation of Articles 26 TFEU, 49 TFEU, 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU — National legislation providing, in respect of inheritance tax on registered shares, for a limitation period of two years where the centre of effective management of the company issuing the shares is in the Member State concerned, and for a limitation period of 10 years in other cases

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings which provides, as regards inheritance tax, for a limitation period of 10 years for the valuation of registered shares in a company whose centre of effective management is established in another Member State, while the same limitation period is two years when the company’s centre of effective management is in the first Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.

1

---
Willard JOHN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5371.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 99.1

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

The undersigned officers of Chester Valley Bancorp Inc. (the "Company") hereby
certify that the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months
ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that as of the
date of this statement, the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all in material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company.

The purpose of this statement is solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350 of the United States Code, as amended by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.


Date:  February 13, 2003                  /s/ Donna M. Coughey
                                          -----------------------------------
                                          Donna M. Coughey
                                          President & Chief Executive Officer


Date:  February 13, 2003                  /s/ Albert S. Randa
                                          -----------------------------------
                                          Albert S. Randa
                                          Chief Financial Officer & Treasurer
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Standard
Management Corporation for the quarter ended March 31, 2003, I, Paul B.
("Pete") Pheffer, President and Chief Financial Officer of Standard Management
Corporation, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, that:


                  (1)      such 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 such Report
                           fairly presents, in all material respects,
                           the financial condition and results of
                           operations of Standard Management
                           Corporation.

May 14, 2003



/s/ Paul B. ("Pete") Pheffer
-----------------------------------------
Paul B. ("Pete") Pheffer
President and Chief Financial Officer
# C_2009297EN.01003701.xml

| 5.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/37

---

Action brought on 16 October 2009 — Nolin v Commission

(Case F-82/09)

2009/C 297/57

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Michel Nolin (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision of the appointing authority of 19 December 2008 concerning the withdrawal of the applicant’s promotion points and priority points.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Director General of DG Admin of 19 December 2008; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Director General of DG Admin of 19 December 2008;

| — | Order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 3 000 as damages to make good the non-material loss which he suffered as a result of its injurious and vexatious behaviour and the infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations which led to a failure to take account of his right to an effective remedy; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 3 000 as damages to make good the non-material loss which he suffered as a result of its injurious and vexatious behaviour and the infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations which led to a failure to take account of his right to an effective remedy;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

---
# L_2005339EN.01001601.xml

| 22.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 339/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 339/16

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 115/2005

of 30 September 2005

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 97/2005 of 8 July 2005 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 97/2005 of 8 July 2005 (1).

| (2) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 2254/2004 of 27 December 2004 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2254/2004 of 27 December 2004 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following indent shall be added in point 54b (Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91) of Chapter XII of Annex II to the Agreement:

| ‘— | 32004 R 2254: Commission Regulation (EC) No 2254/2004 of 27 December 2004 (OJ L 385, 29.12.2004, p. 20).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32004 R 2254: Commission Regulation (EC) No 2254/2004 of 27 December 2004 (OJ L 385, 29.12.2004, p. 20).’

Article 2

The text of Regulation (EC) No 2254/2004 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 1 October 2005, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 30 September 2005.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

HSH Prinz Nikolaus von LIECHTENSTEIN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 306, 24.11.2005, p. 24.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 385, 29.12.2004, p. 20.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.1


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Standard
Management Corporation for the quarter ended September 30, 2002, I, Ronald D.
Hunter, Chairman, and Chief Executive Officer of Standard Management
Corporation, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, that:

         (1)      such 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 such Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of Standard Management Corporation.

October 31, 2002                    /s/ Ronald D. Hunter
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                    Ronald D. Hunter
                                    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2009090EN.01003401.xml

| 18.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/34

---

Action brought on 19 February 2009 — Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-70/09)

2009/C 90/52

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels and M. Noort, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul in part Commission Decision C(2008) 8355 of 11 December 2008 on the reduction of the aid from the European Regional Development Fund within the framework of the single programming document for the Groningen-Drenthe region coming under objective 2 — no 97.07.13.003 — granted in accordance with Commission Decision C(1997) 1362 of 26 May 1997, in so far as the former decision relates to the 2% flat-rate adjustment to the budget in the amount of EUR 1 139 346,24 which was applied and the expenditure amounting in total to NLG 1 160 456 which it was declared could not be subsidised; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in part Commission Decision C(2008) 8355 of 11 December 2008 on the reduction of the aid from the European Regional Development Fund within the framework of the single programming document for the Groningen-Drenthe region coming under objective 2 — no 97.07.13.003 — granted in accordance with Commission Decision C(1997) 1362 of 26 May 1997, in so far as the former decision relates to the 2% flat-rate adjustment to the budget in the amount of EUR 1 139 346,24 which was applied and the expenditure amounting in total to NLG 1 160 456 which it was declared could not be subsidised; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its application the Netherlands first alleges infringement of the principle of legal certainty in that obligations are imposed on a Member State on the basis of case-law of the Court of Justice which post-dates the imposition of those obligations and which at that moment were not clear, precise and foreseeable for the Member State concerned.

In the alternative, the Netherlands alleges infringement of the principle that reasons must be given by virtue of the fact that no more detailed grounds were provided as to the nature of the cross-border interest of the project in question, that project having in the interim been approved and the value of which fell below the thresholds laid down in the public procurement directives.

In conclusion, the Netherlands alleges a breach of Article 211 EC by reason of the fact that the Commission applied a flat-rate reduction of 2% on the ground of the alleged failure to comply with the national conditions governing the project, even though the Commission has power only in respect of compliance with the Community conditions.

---
<Page>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 31.02

                     RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS

I, Michael L. Pungello, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of John W. Henry & Co./Millburn
L.P.;

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 officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

   a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
   disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 and presented in this report our conclusions about the
   effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
   period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

   c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
   over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
   fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
   materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
   reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, 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 and material weaknesses in the design or
   operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
   likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
   summarize and report financial information; and

   b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
   employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
   over financial reporting.

Date: May 16, 2005
-----------------------
By /s/ MICHAEL L. PUNGELLO
   -----------------------
Michael L. Pungello
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  J EROME A NTHONY H OWARD ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. M R . S MITH , Physician at Wallens Ridge State Prison; S.K. Y OUNG , No. 03-6777



#  Warden at Wallens Ridge State Prison; M S . M C C URRY , R.N. at Wallens Ridge State Prison; J OHN D OE , Corrections Officer at Wallens Ridge State Prison,

Defendants-Appellees. 

# 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge.

(CA-03-144-7) Submitted: November 21, 2003 Decided: January 28, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Jerome Anthony Howard, Appellant Pro Se.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION

PER CURIAM:Jerome Anthony Howard appeals the order of the district court dismissing without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (2000) his suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) for failure to state a claim.* This court reviews de novo a district court’s § 1915A dismissal. De’Lonta v. Angelone , 330 F.3d 630, 633 (4th Cir. 2003); Veney v. Wyche , 293 F.3d 726, 730 (4th Cir. 2002). Howard’s claims accruing more than two years before he filed suit are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. As to these claims, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Howard v. Smith , No. 7:03-CV-00144 (W.D. Va. Apr. 29, 2003).Turning to Howard’s remaining claims, we cannot conclude "beyond doubt" that Howard’s complaint fails to state a claim. See Gordon v. Leeke , 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). Howard asserts that he was housed on the second tier notwithstanding his clubbed foot, which made traversing the stairs hazardous. He also contendedthat after a fall in which he broke or dislodged a bone, the prison doctor did not examine him for eleven days, and the examination consisted only of viewing Howard through a window in his cell door. Liberally construing Howard’s complaint, we find that he has alleged that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to an objectively serious medical need sufficient to preclude summary dismissal under § 1915A. See Johnson v. Quinones , 145 F.3d 164, 167 (4th Cir. 1998) (providing standard).*Although a dismissal without prejudice is ordinarily not an appealable order, see Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 ,10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993), the applicable statute of limitations period has passed. See Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-243(a) (Michie 2000). Thus, the order is effectively a final order. 2 H OWARD v. S MITHAccordingly, we vacate the district court’s order as to the timelyfiled claims and remand for further proceedings. We express no opinion as to the proper ultimate disposition of Howard’s claims. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART 3 H OWARD v. S MITH
BOSTON FINANCIAL QUALIFIED HOUSING TAX CREDITS L.P. V


( A Limited Partnership )





EXHIBIT 32.2





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 Boston Financial Qualified Housing Tax Credits L.P. V (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, hereby certifies 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 Partnership.











/s/Kenneth J. Cutillo


Kenneth J. Cutillo


Principal Executive Officer and


Principal Financial Officer


Arch Street VIII, Inc., as


Managing General Partner of


Boston Financial Qualified


Housing Tax Credits L.P. V








Date:       August 16, 2010








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