alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.2


       


      Form of Cured Beef Product Supply Contract


      (English Translation)


      The contract is made by and between             (hereinafter referred to as “Supplier”) and                                           
          (hereinafter referred to as “Demander”). In light that the supplier has accomplished the (hereinafter referred to as “Contract Goods”) and the quality, price and quantity of which have been confirmed by both the parties, the demander agrees to purchase the contract goods and both the parties agree on the terms and conditions set forth below.



      

      	
                  I.
 	
                  Contract goods:
 


      




      

      	
                  II.
 	
                  Quantity and Price:
 


      




      

      	
                  III.
 	
                  Packing Standards and Quality
 


      




      

      	
                  IV.
 	
                  Terms of Shipment and Cost-bearing
 


      




      

      	
                  V.
 	
                  Terms of Payment and Payment Settlement
 


      




      

      	
                  VI.
 	
                  Arbitration
 


      



      Any disagreement or dispute occurs in performing the contract shall be subject to friendly negotiation between the two parties. In case the negotiation arrives at no agreement, the disagreement or dispute shall be submitted to the Arbitration Committee of                        and settled in accordance with its rules and regulations. The legal cost shall be assumed by the losing party.



      

      	
                  VII.
 	
                  Other Terms:
 


      




      

      	
                  VIII.
 	
                  Force majeure
 


      



      Both the supplier and demander will be free of liability in violating the contract due to force majeure.


       


      

      

      


      
      The contact is in duplicate and is closely read and well understood by the two parties who agree to abide by all the terms and conditions herein.



      

      	
                  Supplier:
 	
                  Demander:
 
	
                  Company Name: (Seal)
 	
                  Company Name: (Seal)
 
	
                  Company Address:
 	
                  Company Address:
 
	
                  Legal Representative:
 	
                  Legal Representative:
 
	
                  Date:
 	
                  Date:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________ No. 97-10508 (Summary Calendar)

_________________ MARTI ADDAMS-MORE, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus
NINA RUTH MOORE, Et Al,
Defendants,
DAVID CAVE, Honorable Judge,
Defendant, Appellee

_________________ No. 97-10898

_________________ MARTI ADDAMS-MORE, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus
NINA RUTH MOORE, Et Al,
Defendants,
STATE OF TEXAS,
Defendant - Appellee* 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 for th in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5.4. -2- _________________ No. 97-11257

_________________ MARTI ADDAMS-MORE, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus
NINA RUTH MOORE, Et Al,
Defendants,
COUNTY OF DALLAS,
Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Northern District of Texas

(3:96-CV-2254-D) June 24, 1998 Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
Mar ti Addams-More appeals from the judgments dismissing her claims against s tate-court judge David Cave, the State of Texas, and Dallas County for failure t o state a claim. We consolidate Addams-More’s appeals, F ED . R. A PP . P. 3(b), and we dispose of all-3-

three appeals with this opinion. Addams-More’s motions for leave to correct her briefs are DENIED. This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its

own motion if necessary. S ee Mosley v. Cozby, 8 13 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). Federal courts lack jurisdiction to engage in appellate review of the final determinations of state courts. S ee District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476-82, 103 S. Ct. 1303, 1311-15, 75 L. Ed. 2d 206 (1983); Rooker

v. Fidelity Trust Co. , 263 U.S. 413, 415, 44 S. Ct. 149, 150, 68 L. Ed. 362 (1923). Addams-Mo re repeats the civil-rights claims and the claims under the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12131-12165, that she raised in the distr ict court. Addams-More attempts to use federal civil rights law and the ADA to review the sta te-court judgments adverse to her and to review actions inextricably intertwined with those judgmen ts. We lack jurisdiction to consider Addams-More’s appeals. Addams-More’s appeals are frivolous. We warn Addams-More that future frivolous

a ppeals may result in sanctions against her. Addams-More should review any pe nding appeals and withdraw any appeals that are frivolous. APPEALS DISMISSED. 5 T H C IR . R. 42.2. SANCTIONS WARNING IMPOSED.
Case 1:07-cv-03427-NRB Document 5 Filed 05/30/2007 Page 1 of 1
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1788 

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to enhance penalties 

for theft of a firearm from a Federal firearms licensee. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 11, 2019 

Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. CASSIDY, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. RISCH, 

Mr. BOOZMAN, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. ROBERTS, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. CRUZ, and Mr. PERDUE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to 

enhance penalties for theft of a firearm from a Federal 

firearms licensee. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Firearms Li5 censee Protection Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO ENHANCE CERTAIN PENALTIES. 

7 Section 924 of title 18, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 1788 IS

1 (1) by striking subsection (i) and inserting the 

2 following: 

3 ‘‘(i)(1)(A) A person who knowingly violates section 

4 922(u), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this 

5 title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. 

6 ‘‘(B) In the case of a violation described in subpara7 graph (A) that occurs during the commission of— 

8 ‘‘(i) a burglary, the term of imprisonment shall 

9 be not less than 3 years; or 

10 ‘‘(ii) a robbery, the term of imprisonment shall 

11 be not less than 5 years. 

12 ‘‘(2) In this subsection— 

13 ‘‘(A) the term ‘burglary’ means the unlawful 

14 entry into, or remaining in, the business premises of 

15 a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or li16 censed dealer with the intent to commit a crime; and 

17 ‘‘(B) the term ‘robbery’ has the meaning given 

18 the term in section 1951(b).’’; and 

19 (2) in subsection (m), by inserting ‘‘or attempts 

20 to do so,’’ after ‘‘or licensed collector,’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
<TABLE>
                                                                                                 EXHIBIT 12

                     KENTUCKY POWER COMPANY
        Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                (in thousands except ratio data)
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                    Twelve
                                                                                                    Months
                                                              Year Ended December 31,               Ended
                                                  1992       1993       1994       1995      1996   3/31/97 
<S>                                             <C>        <C>        <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
Fixed Charges:                                                                                    
  Interest on First Mortgage Bonds . . . . . .  $13,275    $17,472    $19,090   $19,090   $14,914   $14,037
  Interest on Other Long-term Debt . . . . . .    7,668      2,033       -        2,422     6,446     7,723
  Interest on Short-term Debt. . . . . . . . .      413      1,001      1,621     2,242     2,849     2,758
  Miscellaneous Interest Charges . . . . . . .      861        523        485       510       555       550
  Estimated Interest Element in Lease Rentals.      800        800        700       700       800       800
       Total Fixed Charges . . . . . . . . . .  $23,017    $21,829    $21,896   $24,964   $25,564   $25,868
                                                                                                  
Earnings:                                                                                         
  Net Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  $26,537    $18,031    $25,273   $25,128   $16,973   $19,348
  Plus Federal Income Taxes. . . . . . . . . .    1,465      1,620      2,178     3,914     5,119     7,159
  Plus State Income Taxes. . . . . . . . . . .    1,891      1,116      1,154     1,420       598     1,089
  Plus Fixed Charges (as above). . . . . . . .   23,017     21,829     21,896    24,964    25,564    25,868
       Total Earnings. . . . . . . . . . . . .  $52,910    $42,596    $50,501   $55,426   $48,254   $53,464

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges . . . . . .     2.29       1.95       2.30      2.22      1.88      2.06
</TABLE>
Case 1:06-cv-14854-AKH Document 4 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH Document 25 Filed 10/11/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH Document 25 Filed 10/11/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH Document 25 Filed 10/11/2007 Page 3 of 3
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MARCOS MORALES,

Appellant,

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-19-00036-CR

Appeal from the

346th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20150D01640)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Marcos Morales is attempting to appeal his conviction of aggravated assault with a deadly 

weapon. Finding that Appellant did not timely file his notice of appeal, we dismiss the appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction. 

A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. Olivo v. State, 

918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). In a criminal case, a defendant’s notice of appeal is 

due within thirty days after the sentence is imposed in open court or the trial court enters an 

appealable order. See TEX.R.APP.P. 26.2(a)(1). The judgment recites that sentence was imposed 

in open court on December 6, 2018. Thus, Appellant’s notice of appeal was due to be filed no 

later than January 5, 2019, and the deadline for seeking an extension of time to file the notice of 

appeal was January 20, 2019. See TEX.R.APP.P. 26.3. Appellant filed his notice of appeal on 
- 2 -

January 10, 2019, but he did not file an extension motion. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal 

for lack of jurisdiction. See Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522-23 (holding that when notice of appeal is 

filed within fifteen days after the deadline but without a timely motion for extension of time to file 

notice of appeal, appellate court must dismiss the attempted appeal for lack of jurisdiction).

February 5, 2019

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32

               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 Kellwood Company (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended May 5, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned
hereby individually certify that, 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 result of operations
        of the Company as of and for the period covered in the Report.




/s/ Robert C. Skinner, Jr.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert C. Skinner, Jr., Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

June 8, 2007



/s/ Gregory W. Kleffner
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory W. Kleffner, Chief Financial Officer

June 8, 2007
Exhibit 10.1

[DoMark Logo]



August 24, 2009

Mr. John Bordynuik, CEO
310 Holdings, Inc.
Ontario, Canada

RE: Media Credits Purchase and Assignment

Dear John;

This letter shall constitute our agreement and understanding concerning the sale
and  assignment  of  $9,997,134  of Media credits in print and radio that DoMark
International, Inc. owns free and clear of any liens or encumbrances of any kind
to 310 Holdings, Inc. pursuant to the following terms:

1. For and as  consideration  of the  assignment to 310 Holdings,  Inc. of above
referenced  media  credits of  $9,997,134,  310  Holdings  shall issue to Domark
International, Inc. one million shares (1,000,000) of restricted common stock of
310 Holdings,  Inc. Domark's EIN number is 20-4647578.  Domark's address is 1809
East Broadway #125 Oviedo, Florida 32765

2. For and as consideration  of the issuance of shares by 310 to Domark,  Domark
shall assign,  set over and transfer title and interest to its remaining balance
of media credits as set forth herein to 310 Holdings, Inc. Domark represents and
warrants to 310 that the media credits being assigned  herein are free and clear
of any liens or  encumbrances  and Domark shall  indemnify and hold harmless 310
from any claims relating to the media credits.

3. Upon closing,  Domark shall notify the vendor of the sale and  assignment and
copy 310 Holdings on the communication to the vendor.

If these  terms and  conditions  are  acceptable,  please  execute  in the space
provided below and return to me by PDF file or by fax to 407-349-1511.

Sincerely,


/s/ R. Thomas Kidd
--------------------------------------
R. Thomas Kidd
Chief Executive Officer

Letter of August 24, 2009
Media Credits Purchase and Assignment
<PAGE>
Accepted and Agreed:

310 Holdings, Inc.


By: /s/
   -----------------------------------
   Its CEO
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-1490

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Joshua Walker

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

 ____________

 Submitted: December 09, 2020

Filed: December 14, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, WOLLMAN, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Joshua Walker appeals after he pleaded guilty, under a plea agreement

containing an appeal waiver, to conspiring to transport stolen vehicles and
felon-in-possession charges, and the district court1

 imposed a within-Guidelines

sentence. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as an abuse of

discretion and as substantively unreasonable. 

We will enforce the appeal waiver in this case because Walker entered into the

plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, his arguments fall

within the scope of the appeal waiver, and no miscarriage of justice would result from

enforcing the waiver. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010)

(standard of review); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003)

(en banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers). Further, we have

independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and

have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal falling outside the scope of the appeal

waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal based on the appeal waiver, and we

grant counsel leave to withdraw.

______________________________

1The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

-2-
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 9-8 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 9-8 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 9-8 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 3 of 3
#### HARTSELL v. STRICKLAND

No. 168 PC.

Case below: 26 N.C. App. 68.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 25 August 1975.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32

              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 Kellwood Company (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended July 29, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the
undersigned hereby individually certify that, 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 result of operations
         of the Company as of and for the period covered in the Report.





/s/ Robert C. Skinner, Jr.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert C. Skinner, Jr., Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

September 6, 2006





/s/ W. Lee Capps III
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
W. Lee Capps III, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer

September 6, 2006





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Kellwood
Company and will be retained by Kellwood Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be
considered filed as part of the Form 10-Q.
Construction

Toolbox Talk Prevent Falls: Guardrails 

Falls are a leading cause of construction injuries and 

fatalities. Workers can fall from ladders, scaffolds, vehicles, 

heavy equipment, aerial lifts, platforms, and roofs, and 

through holes or openings in floors or roofs. Guardrails 

can prevent a fall. 

Bill’s Story 

Bill was repairing an air conditioning unit on the 

roof of a three-story building. He was about a foot 

from an unguarded edge. When he stood up, he 

lost his balance. Bill fell 23 feet to the cement floor 

below and died. 

# What caused this incident? 

# How could this have been prevented?

# Have you ever fallen because of a missing 

guardrail, or do you know someone who has? If 

so, what happened? 

Remember This 

• Your employer must provide every employee with 

training on how to recognize a fall hazard and on fall 

protection. 

• Guardrails, safety nets, and/or personal fall-arrest systems 

must be in place if there is a risk for falls. 

• Guardrails are required on work surfaces where 

workers are at risk of falls greater than 6 feet. 

• Guardrails must be 42 inches high (+/- 3”) and have a 

mid-rail. 

• Body harnesses with lanyards and secure attachment 

points provided by employers must be used if 

guardrails cannot be provided. 

How can we stay safe today?

What will we do at the worksite to prevent fall injuries?

OSHA Standards: 1926.501 and 1926.503
Construction

Toolbox Talk Prevent Falls: Guardrails 

; Your employer must provide every employee with training on how to recognize a fall hazard and on fall protection.

; Guardrails are required on work surfaces where workers are at risk of falls greater than 6 feet. 

; Body harnesses with lanyards and secure attachment points provided by employers must be used if guardrails 

cannot be provided.

GET 

INFORMATION 

CDC/NIOSH INFO: 1-800-CDC-INFO (1-800-232-4636) | TTY: 1-800-232-6348 | www.cdc.gov/info | www.cdc.gov/niosh

CPWR: Contact 301-578-8500 | cpwr-r2p@cpwr.com | www.cpwr.com/toolbox-talks

DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2022-146 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.26616/NIOSHPUB2022146 | August 2022
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

James Joseph Watts, Appellant

No. 06

- 15

- 00072

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 354th District Court of Hunt County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 22,781 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Jus tice Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We note that the appellant, James Joseph Watts, has adequately indicated his inability to
pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED OCTOBER 8, 2015 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-1690

_____________________________

DERICK L. JONES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

John F. Simon, Jr., Judge.

April 18, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

OSTERHAUS, C.J., and BILBREY and NORDBY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Robert David Malove of the Law Offices of Robert David Malove, 

P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Darcy Townsend, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Case 1:06-cv-14864-AKH Document 5 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE v. GREENE

No. 68 PC.

Case below: 34 N.C. App. 149.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 6 December 1977.
#### RAMSEY v. RUDD

No. 183PC

Case below: 49 N.C. App.670

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 March 1981.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**FORM 10-Q**

 

**Section 1350 Certifications**

 

**Quarter ended September 30, 2008**

 

I,Herbert Lindo, Chairman, President and Principal Financial Officer ofKenilworth Systems Corporation (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to thebest of my knowledge:

 

(1)     the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of theCompany for the third quarter ended September 30, 2008 (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

(2)     the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

Dated:  October 15,2008

 
|   | /s/  Herbert Lindo                           |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|   | Herbert  Lindo                               |
|   | Chairman,  Chief Executive Officer and Chief |
|   | Financial  Officer                           |

 

----