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


    


    Party A
(Borrower) :
Harbin Humankind Biology Technology Co., Limited

     

    Party B
(Lender)
: Xin Sun

     

    ID Number
: 23010219660523161X

     

    On the
basis of equality, voluntariness and negotiation, both Party A and Party B enter
into this agreement about the loan.

    
       

      I. Party
B loans USD 39,017 to Party A and provides the loan before October 28,
2008.

    

    II.
Interest: No Interest.

    III. Life
of Loan: No fixed terms of repayment.

    IV. Date
and Method of Payments: Party A will make the repayments in cash according to
the operation of its company.

    V. Settlements
of Diputes: apply for arbitration in local arbitration committee.

    VI. This
contract is taken into effect since signing date. This contract is executed in
two copies with the same legal effect. Both parties hold one copy
respectively.

     

    
      
        
          
            
              	
                      Party
      A (Seal) :

                    	
                      Party
      B:

                    
	
                      Harbin
      Humankind Biology

                    	 
      
	
                      Technology
      Co. Limited

                    	
                      /s/
      Xin Sun

                    
	 	 
	
                      Date:

                    	
                      Date:
      October 27,
2008
Myra Lynne COMBS. v. Michael D. ROBERTSON, Commissioner of North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles.

No. 83P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Christopher W. Brooks, Assistant Attorney General, for Robertson, Michael D. (Commissioner of NC Division of Motor Vehicles).

J. Clark Fisher, for Combs, Myra Lynne.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Petitioner on the 2nd of March 2015 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Respondent, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

> "Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 2nd of March 2015 by Petitioner in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
STATE v. Colell B. STEELE.

No. 208P14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 16, 2015.

Colell B. Steele, Brunswick, for Steele, Colell Barion.

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd of June 2014 by Defendant in Arrest of Judgment:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th of June 2015."
STATE v. RORER.

No. COA07-1214.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 15, 2008.

Certification Date May 5, 2008.

Appeal from Iredell (05CRS54187).

Cases reported without published opinion. No error.
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





In connection with the Annual Report of Freedom Resources Enterprises, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Neil Christiansen, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



(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 result of operations of the Company.









Date: September 15, 2005

/s/ Neil Christiansen

Neil Christiansen

Chief Executive Officer

Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of Camilo Infante, Petitioner, v Donald Selsky, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

[799 NYS2d 331]

*634Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner, an inmate, was ordered by a correction officer to produce a urine sample as part of a random drug screening. When petitioner failed to provide a specimen within the required three-hour period *(see*7 NYCRR 1020.4 [d] [4]), he was charged in a misbehavior report with refusing a direct order and failing to comply with urinalysis testing procedures. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty of the charges and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the testimony of petitioner’s examining physician and the documentary evidence submitted at the hearing, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Wigfall v Goord,*16 AD 3d 791, 791 [2005]; *Matter of Lopez v Goord,*14 AD3d 771, 771 [2005]; *Matter of Becker v Goord,*13 AD3d 947, 948 [2004]). Although petitioner asserts that he was unable to provide the urine sample because of a prior groin injury which was compounded by shy bladder syndrome, his examining physician testified that petitioner’s condition would not have prevented his compliance within the allotted three-hour time period *(see Matter of Zhong v Selsky,*307 AD2d 498, 499 [2003]). Petitioner’s alleged inability to produce the urine sample raised a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve *(see Matter of Cunningham v Goord,*274 AD2d 814, 814 [2000]) and, as the resulting determination was supported by substantial evidence, we decline to disturb it.

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
encore_ex10-7.htm




EXHIBIT B







AMENDMENT TO DATE OF INITIAL TERM


AUTOMATIC RENEWAL







Pursuant to and in recognition of the lengthy delays incurred by the Licensee in gaining SEC approvals and Federal Wholesale Permits, Encore Brands LLC (Licensor) shall grant an automatic renewal to the initial term of the agreement described in section 7.1 of this agreement. TERM. Term shall be 36 months, unless earlier terminated in accordance with Section 7.2, this Agreement shall commence as of the Effective Date of September 16th 2011 and shall continue in effect until (a) termination of this Agreement by either party upon thirty (30) days written notice or (b) the termination of the Ecstasy License Agreement in accordance with its terms, whichever is earlier.

































	
/s/ David Kaufman

	
/s/ Alex McKean


	
David Kaufman

	
Alex McKean


	
Chief Operating Officer

	
Chief Financial Officer


	
Encore Brands LLC

	
Encore Brands, Inc.
----

(2004/C 33 E/079)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0805/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(17 March 2003)

Subject:   Baby feeding and powdered milk in Africa

By means of a relentless propaganda campaign, multinational powdered-milk producers are continuing to encourage African women to feed their new-born babies on powdered milk instead of breastfeeding them. Such propaganda goes against the normal rules and is also particularly dangerous, since (1) in many parts of Africa the water needed in order to dissolve the milk powder is impure and it therefore acts as a disease carrier; (2) for the duration of the breastfeeding period, new-born babies enjoy immunity from various diseases; (3) insistent advertising of powdered milk in very poor countries is of benefit only to multinational companies and to the wealthy industialised countries which produce such milk.

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2003)

The Commission broadly agrees with the assessment of the problems related to formula feeding given in the question. The Commission's policy has consistently been to support breast-feeding in developing countries, except where the infant's mother is known to be HIV positive and the safety of formula feeding plus security of supplies can be guaranteed, or in cases of other pressing medical indications, which are rare.

The Commission therefore agrees that powdered mild should only be used as a substitute for breastfeeding on the advice of health workers.

The Commission supports the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes which was adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1981. In the Commission's view the Code remains of great relevance, although there is a need for it to be updated — particularly in view of the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

The Commission agrees that governments have a responsibility to provide information and education about infant feeding — in particular the advantages of breast-feeding and the problems associated with formula feeding — but it has no plans to support specific programmes in this area.

Increasingly the Commission's development funds are used for general health sector support rather than earmarked projects. While in this context the national government of the recipient country takes the lead in determining expenditure, the Commission would view the provision of appropriate information on baby feeding very important.

----
CALDON v. CALDON.

No. COA08-260.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 18, 2008.

Certification Date December 8, 2008.

Appeal from Orange (93CVD178).

Case reported without published opinion. Reversed and remanded.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40457

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE ANGEL VILLARREAL

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:05-CR-02731

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Jose Angel Villarreal has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Villarreal has not filed a response. Our independent

review ofthe record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
# Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/666Show full title

Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/666 of 28 April 2015 amending Decision 2013/184/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against            Myanmar/Burma         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/666                     

# of 28 April 2015

# amending Decision 2013/184/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Myanmar/Burma

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,

Whereas:

(1)On 22 April 2013, the Council adopted Decision 2013/184/CFSP(1) concerning restrictive measures against Myanmar/Burma.

(2)On 14 April 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/214/CFSP(2) renewing the restrictive measures until 30 April 2015.

(3)On the basis of a review of Decision 2013/184/CFSP, the restrictive measures should be renewed until 30 April 2016.

(4)Decision 2013/184/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

Article 3 of Decision 2013/184/CFSP is hereby replaced by the following:

# ‘Article 3

This Decision shall apply until 30 April 2016. It shall be kept under constant review. It shall be renewed, or amended as                        appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.’.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

Done at Brussels, 28 April 2015.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

E. Rinkēvičs                            

1

Council Decision 2013/184/CFSP of 22 April 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Myanmar/Burma and repealing Decision                              2010/232/CFSP (OJ L 111, 23.4.2013, p. 75).                           

2

Council Decision 2014/214/CFSP of 14 April 2014 amending Decision 2013/184/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Myanmar/Burma                              (OJ L 111, 15.4.2014, p. 84).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM LIN
TELEVISION CORPORATION CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH LIN
TELEVISION CORPORATION ANNUAL REPORT ON FROM 10-Q DATED MARCH 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>  0000931058
<NAME> LIN TELEVISION CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          21,575
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,491
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,851
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                69,766
<PP&E>                                         153,606
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,076
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,755,787
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           65,690
<BONDS>                                        299,349
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     715,949
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,755,787
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                44,610
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   45,621
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,584
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    85
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,352
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,594)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,252
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,846)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,846)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
* 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. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-51222 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. CRISTINA ESCARENO-VARELA, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:07-CR-1063-ALL
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Cristina Escareno-Varela (Varela) appeals the 18-month sentence imposed following her guilty plea to importation ofmarijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. She argues that the district court clearly erred in denying her a minor-role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Varela contends that she was a mere courier who was substantially less culpable than other participants in the offense. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 7, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-51222

2 Whether a defendant is a minor or minimal participant is a factual determination reviewed for clear error. U nited States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 & n.9 (5th Cir. 2005). Pursuant to § 3B1.2(b), a district court may decrease a defendant’s offense level by two levels if the defendant was a minor participant. An adjustment for a minor role applies to a defendant “who is less culpable than most other participants, but whose role could not be described as minimal.” § 3B1.2 cmt. n.5. Varela’s ongoing participation in importing multiple kilograms of marijuana provided an indispensable servi ce to the drug-trafficking operation and was essential to its success. See United States v. Brown, 54 F.3d 234, 241 (5th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Buenrostro, 868 F.2d 135, 138 (5th Cir. 1989). Varela exclusively was responsible for transporting the marijuana across the border and insuring that the marijuana was dispatched effectively to its intended recipients in Kansas. Varela additionally was aware that the jalapeño
cans contained a type and quantity of illegal narcotics, and she received $40 for each successful crossing. Thus, Varela directly profited from her knowing participation in drug importation activities. Thus, the district court’s finding that Varela was not a minor participant
was plausible in light of the record as a whole and therefore not clearly
erroneous. SeeVillanueva, 408 F.3d at 203-04. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
STATE v. Jermaine L. HOLLOWAY.

No. 259P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Jermaine L. Holloway, for Holloway, Jermaine L.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Wallace W. Bradsher, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion***856The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd of July 2015 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                                                     EXHIBIT 8.1

INNOVA'S SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        JURISDICTION OF
SUBSIDIARY NAME                                          INCORPORATION       TRADE NAME
---------------                                         ---------------      ----------
<S>                                                     <C>                  <C>
Corporacion de Radio y Television del Norte de              Mexico              Same
Mexico, S. de  R.L. de C.V.
Corporacion Novaimagen, S. de R.L. de C.V.                  Mexico              Same
Corporacion Novavision, S. de R.L. de C.V.                  Mexico              Same
Servicios Novasat, S.de R.L. de C.V.                        Mexico              Same
Servicios Corporativos de Telefonia, S. de R.L. de          Mexico              Same
C.V.
</TABLE>
# CE2004078EN.01015601.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/156 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/156

---

(2004/C 78 E/0160)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2705/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject:   Renewable energies

Subject:

The Altener Programme for research, promotion and funding at national level of projects dedicated to the development of renewable energies was allocated EUR 74 million in funding. Can the Commission indicate what projects were presented by Italy, which of these received financial support and of how much, and what results were achieved?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

(16 October 2003)

The period for the funding referred to in the Honourable Member's question is the period of the Altener II programme from 1998 to 2002. In response, a table is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. The table is giving details of all proposals which were submitted by proposers from Italy to the Altener programme for co-financing in the last two years of the Altener II programme (2001 and 2002). For these two years, this table contains details of those proposals for which funding was not awarded following evaluation and selection, and of those which were accepted for Community support. For those proposals which were accepted for support, the table also contains the amount of Community support to the Italian co-ordination and the location (home town) of the Italian co-ordinator (plus respective details of any Italian partner). For the first three years of the Altener II programme (1998-2000), the table contains only those projects with Italian coordinators which received support by the Community as for this period data regarding proposals that have not been selected are not available.

Every Altener project has to be concluded with a final report which must be approved by the Commission before final payments are made. These reports normally contain an executive summary together with details of the actions undertaken during the project and the final outcome of the work. A copy of the executive summary and/or the final report for any specific project will be made available to the Honourable Member on request.

The Honourable Member may also be interested to read the evaluation of the management and of the results of both successive Altener programmes for the years 1996-2000 (‘Evaluation of the Altener Programme (1996-2000): Final report for the Directorate General Energy & Transport of the Commission’), which was commissioned from external experts in the year 2000. This report does of course not distinguish between projects with Italian coordinators and other coordinators. However, in case of interest a copy of this Altener programme evaluation can also be provided on request.

---