alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
chlo_ex10-20.htm


     

    
      

      

    

    
 

    Exhibit
10.20

     

    Loan
Agreement

     

    (Translation)

     

    


     

    Party A
(Borrower): Shanghai Yudong Logistics Co., Ltd.

     

    Party B
(Lender): Shandong Jiajia International Freight Forwarding Co., Ltd. Shanghai
Branch

     

    


     

    Both
parties have reached a consensus on the following terms and signed this
agreement.

     

    
      	
              1,

            	
              Party
      B lends Party A RMB 11.05 million and shall deliver the full amount to
      Party A by March 31, 2009.

            
	
              2,

            	
              Loan
      Interest: no interest.

            
	
              3,

            	
              Loan
      period: April 1, 2009 through April 21, 2009.

            
	
              4,

            	
              This
      agreement takes effect on March 30, 2009. This agreement has two original
      copies, and each party holds one original
copy.

            


    

    


     

    Party A :
Shanghai Yudong Logistics Co., Ltd. [Company seal]

     

    Party B:
Shandong Jiajia International Freight Forwarding Co., Ltd. Shanghai Branch
[Company seal]
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-11-00413- CR

Ke nneth S ashin gton, Appellan t

v. State of Texas, Appellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 403 RD JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -DC- 09- 3011 98, H ONO RAB LE WLF ORD F LOW ERS, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has fil ed a m o t i on to abate this appea l for the trial court to consider his motion to wi t h d ra w as appointed appellate counsel and to appoint new appellate counsel. Counsel repr esents that he has filed his motion to withdraw with the trial court. Acc ording ly , we abate this appea l for fiftee n day s and rema nd the cause to the district court of Travis County to consider counsel’s motion to withdraw and appoint a new appellate attorney
. All appellate deadlines will be tolled during the period of abate ment. Any order s resulting there from shall be filed with the cler

k of this Court within t hirty day s of the date of the e ntry of this opinion.__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice

Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Rose and Goodwin Abated Filed: Jul y

28, 2011 Do Not Publish

2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6985

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

FLOYD JUNIOR POWELL, a/k/a Dick,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:99-cr-00012-RLV-6; 5:14-cv-00094-

RLV)

Submitted: August 1, 2014 Decided: August 20, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Floyd Junior Powell, Appellant Pro Se. William A. Brafford, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Craig Darren Randall, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy 

Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Floyd Junior Powell seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order treating his motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Powell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Waege v. Koehler.

(Opinion filed May 31, 1905.)

Appeal from circuit court, Codington county; Hon. Julian Bennett, Judge.

*437Action by Otto Waege against John Koehler. Judgment for defendant. Prom an order granting a new trial, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

*Wilbur S. Glass,*for appellant.

*John B. Hanten,*for respondent.

Puller, J.

The record so clearly shows that by a -mistake of law the trial court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant, regardless of evidence amply sufficient to sustain 'the cause of action alleged in the complaint, that the order granting a new trial, from which this appeal was taken, must-'be affirmed; and it is so ordered.
EXHIBIT 11



|                                     |  |                                       |           |      |   |          
|------------------------------------ |  | ------------------------------------- | --------- | ---- | - | ---------
|                                     |  | Three Months Ended March 31,         
|                                     |  | 2006                                  |           | 2005
|                                     |  | (in thousands, except per share data)
|                                     |  | (unaudited)                          
|Net Income                           |  | $                                     | 738       |      | $ | 635      
|                                     |  |                                       |           |      |   |          
|Average Shares Outstanding           |  |                                       | 1,890,552 |      |   | 1,866,991
|                                     |  |                                       |           |      |   |          
|Basic Earnings Per Share             |  | $                                     | 0.39      |      | $ | 0.34     
|                                     |  |                                       |           |      |   |          
|Net Income                           |  | $                                     | 738       |      | $ | 635      
|                                     |  |                                       |           |      |   |          
|Average Shares Outstanding           |  |                                       | 1,890,552 |      |   | 1,866,991
|Net Effect of Dilutive Stock Options |  |                                       | 50,991    |      |   | 64,641   
|                                     |  |                                       |           |      |   |          
|Adjusted Shares Outstanding          |  |                                       | 1,941,543 |      |   | 1,931,632
|                                     |  |                                       |           |      |   |          
|Diluted Earnings Per Share           |  | $                                     | 0.38      |      | $ | 0.33     
|                                     |  |                                       |           |      |   |
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2025
BELAY T. SEBSIBE, Petitioner, versus U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. (A27-861-125) Submitted: May 31, 1996 Decided: July 18, 1996 Before HALL and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jim Tom Haynes, FRAGOMEN, DEL REY & BERNSEN, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Karen Fletcher Torstenson, James A. Hunolt, Office of Immigration Litgation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Belay T. Sebsibe appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of his motion to reopen his deportation proceedings to allow him to pursue a suspension of his deportation under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1254 (West 1994). We affirm. Motions to reopen are disfavored and the alien bears a "heavy burden" to meet the necessary standard of proof. I.N.S. v. Abudu , 485 U. S. 94, 110 (1988). We review the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion. Yanez-Popp v. I.N.S. , 998 F.2d 231, 234 (4th Cir. 1993). An abuse of discretion exists only if the BIA's decision was made without rational explanation, irrationally departs from established policies, or rests on an impermissible basis, such as ethnic discrimination. M.A. v. I.N.S. , 899 F.2d 304, 310 (4th Cir. 1990) (en banc). Our review had found none of these potentially discrediting factors warranting reversal.Specifically, Sebsibe's arguments in his brief fail to persuade us that the Board abused its discretion. We find that the Board considered all relevant factors in denying the motion to reopen and did not rely on invidious discrimination. Additionally, we find no departure by the Board from its established procedures by not weighing discretionary favorable factors against unfavorable factors. Sebsibe's remaining claims also fail to show an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the Board's denial of Sebsibe's motion to reopen. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and3 legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6159
WINFIELD DACOST SPEEDE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus CHARLES E. THOMPSON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-573-R) Submitted: May 15, 1997 Decided: May 29, 1997 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Winfield Dacost Speede, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997) and the order denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion andorders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Speede v. Thompson , No. CA-96-573-R (W.D. Va. Dec. 17, 1996 and Jan. 7, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 10, 2018

NO. 03-18-00234-CV

Gary Newton, Appellant

v.

Kenneth Williams, Lesia W. Jones, John H. Gomez, and Benita Gomez, Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 21ST DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART –

OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on February 24, 2016. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in 

that portion of the judgment denying appellant’s request for declaratory and injunctive relief.

Therefore, the Court reverses that portion of the trial court’s judgment denying appellant’s 

request for declaratory and injunctive relief and remands the case to the trial court for further 

proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion. The Court affirms the remainder of the trial 

court’s judgment. Each party shall bear the costs of appeal incurred by that party, both in this 

Court and the court below.
**Exhibit31.1**

**PRINCIPALEXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATIONUnder Rule 13a-14 (a) / 15d-14 (a)**

I, Jack R. Ingram,certify that:

1.               I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of XETA Technologies, Inc;

2.               Based on myknowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

3.               Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.               The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

a)              designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b)             evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and

c)              disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.               The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

a)              all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

b)             any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Dated: August 29, 2006   |
|--------------------------|
|                     |
|                     |
|  /s/ Jack R. Ingram |   |
| Jack R. Ingram           |
| Chief Executive  Officer |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                 5
<LEGEND>

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE FORM 10-Q FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                    0000743239
<NAME>                   GLEASON CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>             1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                            7474
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    78201
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      76380
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                177369
<PP&E>                                          271089
<DEPRECIATION>                                  145366
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  336158
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           105387
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         11594
<OTHER-SE>                                      116561
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    336158
<SALES>                                         246611
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                246611
<CGS>                                           168909
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   168909
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 61589
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 662
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  15451
<INCOME-TAX>                                      6465
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               8986
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      8986
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .90


</TABLE>
<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

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Carbo Ceramics Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby
certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 of the
company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-K
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

Dated: March 3, 2004

/s/ C. MARK PEARSON
--------------------------------------------
Name:  C. Mark Pearson
Title: Chief Executive Officer

Date:  March 3, 2004

/s/ PAUL G. VITEK
--------------------------------------------
Name:  Paul G. Vitek
Title: Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER







PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with this Annual Report of Premier Holding Corp (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jack Gregory, the Chief Executive Officer and Director 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 my knowledge:



1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010, 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated:  March 3, 2011











/s/Jack Gregory

Jack Gregory

Chief Executive Officer and Director
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 93 (Friday, May 14, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 27314]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11729]


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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: Wednesday, May 19, 2010, 9 a.m.-12 noon.

Place: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

Status: Commission Meeting--Open to the Public.

Matters to be Considered:
    1. Pending Decisional Matter: Infant Bath Seats--Final Rule.
    2. Baby Walkers--Final Rule and Revocation of the Ban of Certain 
Baby Walkers.
    A live Webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at http://www.cpsc.gov/webcast.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

Contact Person for More Information:  Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814 (301) 504-7923.

    Dated May 11, 2010.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-11729 Filed 5-12-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
#### White v. Townsend.

(Decided May 19, 1911.)

Appeal from Powell Circuit Court.

A counterclaim for damages for cutting timber cannot be asserted in an action to establish a public passway.

JOHN D. ATKINSON, KASH & KASH and HAZELRIGG & HAZELRIGG for appellant.

C. F. SPENCER for appellee.

RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR REHEARING BY

CHIEF JUSTICE ITobson

Overruling petition.

The only matter that has been determined in this case is the right of appellees to use the passway in question as' a public passway. The counterclaim for the cutting of appellant’s timber could not be asserted in an action to establish a public passway, and this matter was properly disregarded by the circuit court. Appellant may, in an independent action, litigate the matter, and this action will be no bar to an action for that purpose.

Petition overruled.
# Philip A. Hart: A Featured Biography

**

----

The newest of the Senate office buildings is named for Michigan senator Philip A. Hart (1912-1976). Over the course of his 18-year Senate career, Hart distinguished himself as a man of deep personal conviction and integrity and a steadfast advocate for the common man. He was an ardent supporter of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and served as the floor manager of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. As the chairman of the Antitrust Subcommittee he took on big business even when it contradicted his own political interests. Senator Hart’s commitment to such causes earned him the moniker, “The Conscience of the Senate.” The Senate paid tribute to Philip Hart by naming the new office building in his honor as he was dying of cancer in 1976. The Hart Senate Office Building opened in 1982, despite the aesthetic objections of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, becoming the only congressional office building named after a sitting (or living) member.

All Featured Biographies

        -  Contact 
        -  Leadership & Officers 
        -  Former Senators 
        -  Qualifications & Terms of Service 
        -  Facts & Milestones 
        -  States 

### Organizational Chart 

This chart shows the relationships among Senate leaders and officers who manage the flow of legislative and administrative business in the Senate.  

### Contact Your Senator 

Can't find your senator's name in the list of Senators?  Perhaps he or she is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, or a Senator in your State Legislature.

### Biographical Directory 

The Directory provides information about former and current senators.