alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| Subsidiary Name                                   |   | Jurisdiction of Incorporation |   | Percentage Owned by SmartHeat |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------|--------|
| Shenyang Taiyu Machinery & Electronic Co., Ltd.    |   | People’s Republic of China        |   |                                         | 100    | % |
| SmartHeat (Siping) Beifang Energy Technology Co., Ltd. |   | People’s Republic of China        |   |                                         | 100    | % |
| SanDeKe Co., Ltd.                                      |   | People’s Republic of China        |   |                                         | 100    | % |
| Beijing SmartHeat Jinhui Energy Technology Co., Ltd.   |   | People’s Republic of China        |   |                                         | 52     | %(1) |
| SmartHeat (China) Investment Co., Ltd.                 |   | People’s Republic of China        |   |                                         | 100    | % |
| SmartHeat (Shenyang) Energy Equipment Co., Ltd.        |   | People’s Republic of China        |   |                                         | 100    | %(2) |
| SmartHeat (Shanghai) Trading Co., Ltd.                 |   | People’s Republic of China        |   |                                         | 100    | % |

| (1) | Beijing SmartHeat Jinhui Energy Technology Co., Ltd. (“Jinhui”) is a joint venture of which we own 52%. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | SmartHeat (Shenyang) Energy Equipment Co., Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of SmartHeat (China) Investment Co., Ltd. |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
Signed and Filed: May 21, 2019

________________________________________

DENNIS MONTALI

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

Entered on Docket 

May 22, 2019

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2180 Filed: 05/21/19 Entered: 05/22/19 10:08:56 Page 1 of

2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2180 Filed: 05/21/19 Entered: 05/22/19 10:08:56 Page 2 of

2
#### The Porous Plaster Company of the Village of Sing Sing, Respondent, v. William Edwards, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### LOIS G. COGGSHALL and others, Appellants, *v.*JAMES F. GREEN and others, Respondents.

*Appointment of administratew*— removal *of, for improvidence*— what *is improvidence*— 3 *B. 8. (6th*«&), *p.*78, § 36.

Appeal from an order of the surrogate of Cayuga county.

This is an appeal by some of the next of kin from the order of the surrogate of Cayuga county, appointing the respondents James E. Green and Calvin B. Green administrators of the estate of William Green. The appellants contest the appointment of the respondents, upon the ground that they are incompetent to administer by reason of improvidence; that James E. Green' has wasted the estate by falsely claiming parts of it as belonging to himself, and that the petition for the appointment of the respondents, filed by James E. Green, greatly understates the amount of the personal estate of the intestate.

*472The court at General Term say: “ There is no evidence to sustain the allegation of improvidence, in the legal sense in which that term is used in the statute, relating to the appointment of administrators. The statute is, that ‘no letters of administration shall be granted to a person who has been convicted of an infamous crime, who is incapable of making a contract, who is not a citizen of the United States (unless he resides in the State), who is under twenty-one years of age,’ nor to any person ‘who shall be judged incompetent by the surrogate to execute the duties of such trust by reason of drunkenness, improvidence or want of understanding.’ (3 R. S. [6th ed.], p. 78, § 35.) Moral guilt or delinquency is not a ground for excluding a person from receiving letters, unless he, has been convicted of an infamous crime. (Dayton on Surrogates, 241.)

Improvidence such as to exclude a party from administration, is a want of ordinary care and forecast in the acquisition and preservation of property. *(Emerson*v. *Bowers,*14 N. Y., 449.) And it has been held that vicious conduct, improper and dishonest acquisition of property, and even loose habits of business, did not constitute ‘ improvidence ’ within the meaning of the statute, nor the fact that the petitioner was indebted to the estate. (See *Ooope*v. *Lowerre,*1 Barb. Ch., 45; *McMahon*v. *Harrison,*10 Barb., 659; *Emerson*v. *Bowers,*14 N. Y., 449.) And in *Goope*v. *Lowerre*the chancellor says that the fact that a man seeks to obtain the property of others by theft or fraud is not evidence of improvidence.’.’

*Mortimer V. Austm,*for the appellant.

*S. E. Day,*for respondent James E. Green. *W. W. Hare,*for respondent Calvin B. Green. *Edwin Baldwin,*for respondents Wm. H. Weeks and others. *D. L. HurTbut,*guardian *ad litem*and attorney for respondents Edwin Weeks and others.

Opinion by

Taloott, J.

Present — MulliN, P. J., Smith and Taloott, JJ.

Order of surrogate of Cayuga county affirmed, with costs to be paid out of fund.
ex10_8.htm


 

EXHIBIT 10.8

 


Employment Contract of Mr Zhao Baotang

Retainer: Dong guan CHDITN printing co. ltd

Employee: Mr Zhao, baotang

Job duty:

Chief Sales Officer: making sales strategy, analyzing market and sales predition

Working periods: since july 1. 2009 to june 30 2011

 

Salary: RMB15000 per month.

 

Sign date: July 1 2009
1 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 1 3

- 3492

_____________ MICHE L E SCHROLLER WILLIAM SCHROLLER ,

Appellant s

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

____________ On Appeal from the United States Dis trict Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ( No. 2

- 11

- cv
- 0 7719 ) District Judge: Honorable Robert F. Kelly

____________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

March 27 , 2014

____________

Before: FUENTES, SHWARTZ , Circuit Judges , and ROS ENTHAL , District Judge 1 (Filed: May 1, 2014 )

____________ OPINION OF THE COURT

____________ FUENTES, Circuit Judge :

1 The Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas , sitting by designation.2

Plaintiffs Michelle and William Schroller appeal the District Court’s dismissal of their case on the ground that the Court lacked sub je ct matter jurisdiction . After exhausting their administrative remedies, the Schroller s brought this case against the
United States and the Valley Forge National Park relying for jurisdiction on the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq

. The Schrollers allege they suffered damages when, on October 7, 2009, a tree in the Park suddenly and without warning fell
on Miche le Schroller as she was walking , hitting her and pushing her to the ground. See
Schroller v. United States , 2013 WL 3878690 , at *1 (E.D. Pa. July 26, 2013). Schrolle r suffered a closed head injury with post

- concussive syndrome, a fractur ed skull, a scalp laceration resulting in scarring and disfigurement, fractured teeth, an acute tear of the right rotator cuff, post traumatic vertigo, and other related injuries. Id. Sch r oller’s
husband suffered loss of consortium. Id. Plaintiffs seek damages in excess of $150,000.
Id. The District Court granted dismissal because it found the “discretio nary function exception” (“DFE”) to the FT CA , as outlined in our prior precedent Merando v. United
States , 517 F.3d 160 (3d Cir. 2008) , controlled and immunize d the U.S. from tort liability. We recognize that Miche le Schroller alleged to have sustained major injuries after the October 7, 2009, in cident. However, a fter a careful revi ew of the record and the parties’ arguments, we find no basis fo r disturbing the District Court’ s persuasive and
well

- reasoned conclusion.
We therefore affirm the judgment for substantially the same reasons set forth in
the District Court’ s opinion. See Schroller , 2 013 WL 3878690.
#### Herbert C. Mason, Respondent, v. Andrew F. Jayne and Mary F. Brown, Appellants.

(Actions 1 and 2.)

Motion granted, without costs.

Present —Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Woodward and Rich, JJ.
Fifth Department,

June Term, 1885.

#### George E. Jennings and others, Respondents, v. Edward Bayer and others, Appellants.

Order appealed from reversed and judgment permitted to be modified as indicated m the opinion, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellants. Opinion by

Bradley, J.
**Exhibit
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION**




I,
      Edwin
      F. Heinen, Chief Financial Officer of Glowpoint, Inc., a
      Delaware corporation (the "Company"), do hereby certify, in accordance with
      18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as created pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that:




1)  The accompanying
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the nine and three months
      ended
      September 30, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
      as amended; and




2)  The information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the Company .




Date:
                June 6, 2007By:
            /s/
                Edwin F. HeinenEdwin
              F. Heinen
              Chief
                Financial Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (“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 Glowpoint, Inc. and will be retained by Glowpoint, Inc. and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request
No. 17,815.

#### Richard Edward Lundborg *v.*People of the State of Colorado.

(299 P. [2d] 117)

Decided July *2,*1956.

Mr. Francis P. O’Neill, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General, Mr. Frank E. Hickey, Deputy, Mr. Norman H. Comstock, Assistant, for defendant in error.

*En Banc.*

Per Curiam.

Judgment affirmed without written opinion.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 99


                  [MET-COIL SYSTEMS CORPORATION LETTERHEAD]



                       MET-COIL REPORTS NET INCOME FOR
                        SECOND QUARTER AND FIRST HALF


        CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA - JANUARY 7, 1998 - Met-Coil Systems Corporation
(METS), a supplier of advanced sheet metal fabricating equipment and glass
processing technologies for the global market, today reported net income for
the second quarter and first half of fiscal 1998.

        "Our standard product business for the HVAC and industrial markets is
enjoying growth both domestically and internationally.  This growth is
attributable to our continued product developments for the steel service center
industry and end-product manufacturers", reported Jim Heitt, president and
chief operating officer of Met-Coil.

SECOND QUARTER AND SIX-MONTH PERFORMANCE

        Revenues for the quarter ended November 30, 1997 increased to $12.4
million from $9 million for the prior year period.  For the first half of
fiscal 1998 revenues were $22.9 million, an increase of 29% compared to
revenues of $17.7 million last year.

        Net income for the quarter ended November 30, 1997 was $662,000 or $.15
income per common share compared to net income of $149,000 or $.01 income per
common share for second quarter of last year.  Net income for the six months
ended November 30, 1997 was $839,000 or $.16 income per common share.  A year
ago net income included profit from operations of $281,000 plus a lawsuit
settlement of $450,000 to total $731,000 or $.16 income per common share.

        During the first six months of fiscal 1998, the Company has reduced its
long term debt by $2.9 million.  Order backlog was $13.6 million at November
30, 1997, an increase of 19% over the November 30, 1996 level of $11.4 million.

        Met-Coil is headquartered in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.  Its operating units
and affiliates include Iowa Precision Industries also in Cedar Rapids; The
Lockformer Company in Lisle, Illinois; Met-Coil Ltd., Ayase, Japan and Met-Coil
Ltd. - USA in Lisle, Illinois.

                               # # # END # # #
Marketing and Distribution Agreement Term Sheet with Allstar Marketing Group, LL



 Exhibit 10.1 
 Allstar Marketing Inc 
 MARKETING & DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT 
 TERM SHEET 
  

			
	AGREEMENT EFFECTIVE DATE:	  	6/9/09
		
	PARTIES:	  	 Dynamic Response Group
 4770 Biscayne Blvd, Ste
780
 Miami, FL 33137
 Contact: Melissa Rice, CEO
mkrice@mkrpa.com

		
	AMG	  	 Allstar Marketing Group, LLC (herein referred to as “AMG”)
 4 Skyline Drive
 Hawthorne, NY 10532
 Contact: Scott Boilen, President scottb@allstarrmg.com

		
	 PRODUCTS, COMPONENT PARTS, &
 DESCRIPTION/USE
	  	Gem Magic
		
	TERRITORY	  	Us & Canada
		
	DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS	  	Direct Response (TV, Internet & Print)
		
	TERMS	  	40% To Allstar- 60% to DRG profit split based on Net income.
		
	TERM OF AGREEMENT	  	1 year with automatic Renewals upon sales of 100K units.
		
	SPECIAL TERMS & CONDITIONS	  	Allstar Marketing Inc will sell the Product to DRG at Allstar’s actual cost of goods. Allstar will provide all footage on the Product to DRG for DRG to utilize in it’s advertisement.

		
		  	At the point in which DRG spends 1,000,000 in TV advertising, AMG agrees to pay DRG a reverse royalty of 40% of the profits generated through the sale of the Product by AMG through all other
channels of distribution.

 The Parties each agree to the terms of this Agreement which expression includes this Term Sheet.

  

					
	Signed for and on behalf of:	 		 	 Signed for and on behalf of:
 Allstar Marketing
Group, LLC

			
	

	 		 	


	Date: _____________________________________________	 		 	Ron Steblea, Executive Vice President
		 		 	Date: 7-13-09
Exhibit A

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2770-1 Filed: 06/26/19 Entered: 06/26/19 21:59:03 Page 1

of 2
Recorded No. Amount Recorded No. Amount

1 2–5 21-18-009 Alameda 4/5/2019 2019061453 $13,365.35 Pac. Gas 

2 6–9 21-18-100 Santa Clara 4/15/2019 24155545 $1,085.85 Pac. Gas 

3 10–15 21-18-377 San Joaquin 4/15/2019 2019-036858 $59,343.80 6/14/2019 2019-062687 $54,659.50 Pac. Gas 

A

Exhibit A - Index of Recorded Liens and Partial Releases

Lien information Partial release information

Ref. no. Ex. B. pp. Job no(s). County Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2770-1 Filed: 06/26/19 Entered: 06/26/19 21:59:03 Page 2

of 2
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 102 (Thursday, May 27, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29772-29773]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12546]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality


Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), announcement is made of a Health Care 
Policy and

[[Page 29773]]

Research Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) meeting.
    A Special Emphasis Panel is a group of experts in fields related to 
health care research who are invited by the Agency for Healthcare 
Research and Quality (AHRQ), and agree to be available, to conduct on 
an as needed basis, scientific reviews of applications for AHRQ 
support. Individual members of the Panel do not attend regularly-
scheduled meetings and do not serve for fixed terms or a long period of 
time. Rather, they are asked to participate in particular review 
meetings which require their type of expertise.
    Substantial segments of the upcoming SEP meeting listed below will 
be closed to the public in accordance with the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, section 10 (d) of 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2 and 5 U.S.C. 552b 
(c)(6). Grant applications for the Recovery Act 2009 Limited 
Competition: Prospect Studies--Building New Clinical Infrastructure for 
CE (R01) applications are to be reviewed and discussed at this meeting. 
These discussions are likely to reveal personal information concerning 
individuals associated with the applications. This information is 
exempt from mandatory disclosure under the above-cited statutes.

    SEP Meeting on: Recovery Act 2009 Limited Competition: Prospect 
Studies--Building New Clinical Infrastructure for CE (R01).
    Dates: June 16, 2010. (Open on June 16 from 8 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. 
and closed for the remainder of the meeting.)
    Place: Hyatt Regency Hotel, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, 1 Bethesda 
Metro Center, Conference Room TBD, Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Anyone wishing to obtain a roster of members, 
agenda or minutes of the nonconfidential portions of this meeting 
should contact Mrs. Bonnie Campbell, Committee Management Officer, 
Office of Extramural Research, Education and Priority Populations, 
AHRQ, 540 Gaither Road, Room 2038, Rockville, Maryland 20850, 
Telephone (301) 427-1554.
    Agenda items for this meeting are subject to change as 
priorities dictate.

    Dated: May 13, 2010.
Carolyn M. Clancy,
Director.
[FR Doc. 2010-12546 Filed 5-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-90-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

K.T.,

Petitioner

v.

H.T.,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 449 WAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

K.T.,

Petitioner

v.

H.T.,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 450 WAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 30th day of December, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED

.

Mr. Justice Eakin did not participate in the decision of t his matter.
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of American Shared Hospital Services for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.




Ernest A. Bates, M.D., the Chief Executive Officer and Craig K. Tagawa, the Chief Financial Officer of American Shared Hospital Services, each certifies that, to the best of his 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 results of operationsof American Shared Hospital Services.




May 16, 2011


/s/ Ernest A. Bates, M.D.Ernest A. Bates, M.D.Chief Executive Officer




/s/ Craig K. TagawaCraig K. TagawaChief Financial Officer
# Fourt **h Court of Appeals**

**San Antonio, Texas**

June 1, 2016

No. 04

- 15

- 00488

- CV

CITY OF LEON VALLEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP.,

Appellant

v.

Larry LITTLE

, Appellee

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011

- CI

- 17823

Honorab le Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The Appellant’s Unopposed First Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief is

GRANTED. The appel lant ’s reply brief is due on June 20, 2016.

_________________________________ Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 1st day of June, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### John Moisa, Appellant, v. Ansel V. Young, as Overseer of the Poor of the Town of Southhold, Suffolk County, New York, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion.

Jenks, P. J.; Hirschberg,-Burr, Thomas and Carr, JJ., concurred:
*0084322* 

No. 2019-07-23-1 

Verify by email at GoodStandingRequests@sc.ohio.gov 

The Supreme Court of Ohio 

CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING 

 

I, GINA WHITE PALMER, Director of the Attorney Services Division of the Supreme 

Court of Ohio, do hereby certify that I am the custodian of the records of the Office of 

Attorney Services of the Supreme Court and that the Attorney Services Division is 

responsible for reviewing Court records to determine the status of Ohio attorneys. I 

further certify that, having fulfilled all of the requirements for admission to the practice of 

law in Ohio, 

Joseph Michael Esmont 

Attorney Registration No. 0084322 

was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio on November 17, 2008; has registered as an 

active attorney pursuant to the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of 

Ohio; is in good standing with the Supreme Court of Ohio; and is entitled to practice law 

in this state. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have 

subscribed my name and affixed the seal of the 

Supreme Court, this 23rd day of July, 2019. 

GINA WHITE PALMER 

 Director, Attorney Services Division 

 

_______________________________________ 

Lei Moore 

 Administrative Assistant 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3390-1 Filed: 08/06/19 Entered: 08/06/19 15:15:01 Page 1

of 3
AO 136

(Rev. 10/98)

CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDIN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

: ss.

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO :

I, 6$1'< 23$&,&+, Clerk of the United States Court for the Northern Distr

DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that  was duly admitte

said Court on and is in good standing as a member of the ba

Dated at 6$1'<23$&,&+

Clerk of Court

on By: s/

 Deputy Clerk

Joseph M. Esmont 0084322

January 21, 2009

Toledo, Ohio

July 22, 2019 Annie Crawford

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3390-1 Filed: 08/06/19 Entered: 08/06/19 15:15:01 Pag

of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

CERTIFICATE OF

GOOD STANDING

I, Richard W. Nagel, Clerk of this Court, certify that

was duly admitted to practice in this Court on

and is in good standing as a member of the Bar of this Court. 

Dated at __________, Ohio on __________________. 

JOSEPH M. ESMONT, BAR #0084322

December 13, 2017

Cincinnati 7/24/19

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3390-1 Filed: 08/06/19 Entered: 08/06/19 15:15:01 Page 3

of 3
#### ANSEL N. PARTRIDGE, Plaintiff, *v.*CHRISTOPHER F. NORTON, Defendant.

*Direction of verdict, subject to opinion of General Term*— *not proper unless there be no dispute as to the facts.*

Applioation for judgment on a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, directed at the Circuit, subject to the opinion of the General Term.

The court at General Term say: “ The defendant objected to certain evidence offered by the plaintiff. The objection was overruled, the defendant excepted, and .the evidence was received. At the close of the trial, the court directed a verdict for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court at General Term. This was a mistrial. *‘*Hpon a verdict subject to the opinion of the court, the question is never whether a new trial shall be granted, but which party, upon a conceded state of facts, shall have final judgment.’ *(Qóbh*v. *Cornish,*16 N. Y., 602; *Purchase*v. *Matteson,*25 id., 211.) There was- no waiver of the exceptions, or consent to the directing of a verdict, as in *■Byrnes*v. *Cohoes*(12 S. C. N. Y., 602).

There must be a new trial, costs to abide the event.”

*Magone <&*Holbroolc, for. the plaintiff. *WilUam E.*Smith, for the defendant.

Opinion by

Learned, P. J.

Present — Learned, P. J., BocKes and Boardman, JJ.

Application for judgment denied and new trial granted, costs to abide event.