alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>



                                                                   Exhibit 4.40



                              (Summary Translation)

                              COOPERATION AGREEMENT



                                     Between

                       Jiangxi LDK Solar Hi-Tech Co., Ltd.

                                       And

                               Nanchang University



                              For the Establishment

                                       of

                    Nanchang University LDK Solar Laboratory



This Agreement is made by and between Nanchang University (herein "Party A") and
Nanchang LDK Solar Hi-Tech Co., Ltd.(herein "Party B")

Through amicable negotiations, Party A and Party B have reached the following
agreement on the establishment of Nanchang University LDK Solar Laboratory.


CONSTRUCTION

1, The Laboratory is set up at Party A's main campus. Dr. Lang Zhou of Party A
and Mr. Pietro Rossetto of Party B are in charge of the project respectively.


DEVELOPMENT

3, Every January of the year, the Laboratory should set up current year's main
research and development topics.


<PAGE>

4, Every year the Laboratory shall hold at least 6 times bilateral meetings.

5, Party A and Party B shall cooperate to apply for national-wide or
local-related hi-tech projects.

6, The Laboratory shall host an academic announcement once a year; it shall host
a discussion panel twice a year.

7, The Laboratory shall cooperate with Party B to set up the "Nanchang
University material science and Post Doctorate in Engineering work station " to
educate hi-tech professionals.

8,The Laboratory shall set up a part-time master degree in "solar material
engineering" field.


DEVELOPMENT FEES

9, Party B agrees to provide Party A in aggregate amount of Rmb 240,000.00 per
year which will be distributed by means of Rmb 20,000.00 per month.

10, Cost of "special project" should be decided independently. "Special project"
means the project with annual cost of more than Rmb 200,000.00.

11, All the fees mentioned above do not include tuition fees for master degree
in material engineering, funds for the annual meeting of the committee of the
Laboratory, nor funds for "LDK international PV material and PV technology
panel".


MISCELLANEOUS

12, Party A promises not to disclose any information regarding the equipments,
material and technologies to any third parties.

13, Both Parties agree to share the core technologies and academic results
together.


<PAGE>

14, This Agreement is made in four original copies, and each party shall keep
one copy hereof.

15, This Agreement shall become effective upon signing by the parties.



Party A:

Nanchang University

Representative (signature):-----

Date: January 23, 2007



Party B:

Jiangxi LDK Solar Hi-Tech Co., Ltd.

Representative (signature):-----

Date:  January 24, 2007
**Exhibit
31.1**
 
 **CERTIFICATION**
 
 I, Daniel
Greenleaf, certify that:
 
 1.
    I
      have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of VioQuest
      Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Registrant”);2.
    Based
      on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
      material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
      statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
      were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
      report;3.
    Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
      financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
      Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    The
      Registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
      establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
      defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)) and 15d-15(e)) for Registrant and
      have:(a)
    Designed
      such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
      controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
      that material information relating to the Registrant, including its
      consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared;(b)
    Evaluated
      the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures
      and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
      the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period
      covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(c)
    Disclosed
      in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over
      financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent
      fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
      annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
      materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial
      reporting; and5.
    The
      Registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
      our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
      to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the Registrant’s
      board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a)
    All
      significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial information; and(b)
    Any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s
      internal control over financial reporting.
 
 Date:
      May 13, 2005
    /s/
      Daniel GreenleafDaniel
      Greenleaf
      President
      & Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit
        2.2**
 **FIRST
        AMENDMENT**
 **TO**
 **AGREEMENT
        AND PLAN OF MERGER**
 
 THIS
        FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF MERGER (the “Amendment”) is dated as of
        August 19, 2005, by and among VioQuest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Minnesota
        corporation (“Parent”), Greenwich Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation
        (“Greenwich”), and VQ Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned
        subsidiary of Parent (“VQ Merger Sub”).
 
 **W
        I T N E S S E T H**
  WHEREAS,
        on July 1, 2005, the parties hereto executed that certain Agreement and Plan
        of
        Merger (the “Merger Agreement”) pursuant to which VQ Merger Sub would merge with
        and into Greenwich and all of the outstanding shares of Greenwich would be
        exchanged for shares of Parent;
 
 WHEREAS,
        Section 7.1(b) of the Merger Agreement provides that either party may terminate
        the Merger Agreement in the event that the Merger shall not have been
        consummated by August 31, 2005, which date is defined in the Merger Agreement
        as
        the “Outside Date;” and
 
 WHEREAS,
        the parties hereto wish to amend the Merger Agreement in order to provide
        that
        the Outside Date shall be extended until October 31, 2005.
 
 NOW,
        THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and other good and
        valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
        acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:
 
 1.  Amendment
        of Definition of “Outside Date .”
        Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Merger Agreement,
        the
        term “Outside Date” as used in the Merger Agreement (as hereby amended) shall
        mean October 31, 2005.
  2.  Counterpart
        Execution .
        This
        Amendment may be executed by the parties hereto in any number of counterparts,
        each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute
        one
        and the same instrument.
 
 3.  Ratification
        of Merger Agreement .
        Except
        as expressly modified or amended by the provisions of Section 1 hereof, all
        other terms and conditions of the Merger Agreement, including all exhibits
        and
        schedules thereto, shall remain in full force and effect.
 
 **[Signature
        Page Follows.]**
  
  IN
        WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto has caused this Amendment to
        be
        executed on the date first written above by their respective
        officers.
 
 **VIOQUEST
                PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.**By:
              /s/ Daniel
                E. GreenleafDaniel
                E. GreenleafPresident
                and Chief Executive Officer
  **GREENWICH
                THERAPEUTICS, INC.**By:
              /s/ J.
                Jay LobellJ.
                Jay LobellPresident
  **VQ
                ACQUISITION CORP.**By:
              /s/ Daniel
                E. GreenleafDaniel
                E. GreenleafPresident
Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER 
PURSUANT TO RULES 13a-14 AND 15d-14 
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934  I, Sharon Xiaorong Tang, Chief Financial Officer of Advanced Battery Technologies, Inc. (the Registrant), certify that: 1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 of the Registrant. 2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. 3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in the report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods, presented in the report. 4.   The other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Registrant and have: (a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (c)    Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrants internal control over financial reporting; and 5.   The Registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the audit committee of the Registrants board of directors (or persons fulfilling the equivalent function): (a)    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting. Dated:  November 8, 2007/s/ Sharon Xiaorong Tang
Sharon Xiaorong Tang
Chief Financial Officer
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND REQUEST FOR SERVICE OF PAPERS 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, 

appears herein as counsel on behalf of ICE NGX Canada Inc., and demands, pursuant 

to Rules 2002, 4006, 9007, 9010, 9013 and 9022 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy 

Procedure and Section 342 of the Bankruptcy Code, and any other rules or sections of 

the Code or local rules as may be applicable in this case governing notice, that all 

notices given or requested to be given in this case and all papers and pleadings served 

or required to be served in this case be given to and served upon the following: 

Chris Johnstone 

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP 

950 PAGE MILL ROAD 

PALO ALTO, CA 94304 

CHRIS.JOHNSTONE@WILMERHALE.COM 

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP 

Chris Johnstone (C.A. Bar No. 242152) 

950 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94304 

+1 650 858 6000 

+1 650 858 6100 

chris.johnstone@wilmerhale.com 

Attorneys for ICE NGX Canada Inc. 

In re 

PG&E Corporation 

Debtor. 

 Bk. No. 19-30088 

Chapter 11 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 442 Filed: 02/14/19 Entered: 02/14/19 06:34:58 Page 1 of 2
-2- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, the foregoing demand includes not only 

the notice, pleadings and orders referred to in the Rules specified above, but also 

includes, without limitation, all other notices and papers, applications, motions, 

petitions, pleadings, requests, complaints or demands, whether formal or informal, 

whether written or oral, and whether transmitted or conveyed by mail, hand delivery, 

telephone, facsimile, telex, electronic means or otherwise, which affects the abovecaptioned bankruptcy case. 

Dated: February 14, 2019 /s/ Chris Johnstone 

 Chris Johnstone 

 chris.johnstone@wilmerhale.com 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 442 Filed: 02/14/19 Entered: 02/14/19 06:34:58 Page 2 of 2
A96A0886.

#### In the Interest of J. B., a child.

(474 SE2d 111)

Judge Harold R. Banke.

J. B., a minor, was on probation when he ran away from home. After officers took him into custody, as OCGA § 15-11-17 (a) allows them to do, J. B. escaped their control and attempted to flee. The State filed delinquency petitions against the child based on his pro*253bation violation and on facts which would, if J. B. were an adult, merit the charge of misdemeanor escape (OCGA § 16-10-52). The juvenile court adjudicated him delinquent, and he appeals. *Held:*

Decided July 11, 1996.

*W. Luther Jones,*for appellant.

*Peter J. Skandalakis, District Attorney, Dennis T. Blackmon, Kevin W. Drummond, Assistant District Attorneys,*for appellee.

1. J. B. contends the trial court should have granted his motion to dismiss the charge based on the adult crime of misdemeanor escape. We agree. In *Flanagan v. State,*212 Ga. App. 468 (1) (442 SE2d 16) (1994), we found the application of OCGA § 16-10-52 limited to persons who escape while in custody “prior to or after having been convicted of a *felony, misdemeanor or violation of a municipal*ordinance.” The officers’ custody of J. B. did not fall within this statute. “A juvenile under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court is not charged with the commission of a crime, but rather with the commission of a delinquent act, which is not a crime. . . .” *In the Interest of M. B.,*217 Ga. App. 660, 661 (458 SE2d 864) (1995). In that case, which involved a juvenile charged with bail jumping under OCGA § 16-10-51, we held the State could not show the juvenile had been “charged with ... a felony,” as provided by the statute, even though the delinquency petition alleged facts which would constitute a felony had M. B. been an adult. Here, similarly, the State could not show a material element of the escape charge: that J. B. had been charged with a felony, misdemeanor, or violation of a municipal ordinance. We reverse the adjudication of delinquency based on escape and remand to the trial court for resentencing.

2. J. B. has made no argument and has given no citation of authority in support of his two remaining enumerations of error. To the extent Division 1 of our opinion does not render those enumerations moot, they are deemed abandoned pursuant to Court of Appeals Rule 27 (c) (2).

*Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.*

*Beasley, C. J., anil Blackburn, J., concur.*
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Horace Allen, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[772 NYS2d 638]

*846Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 4, 2003, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruling that claimant was discharged from his employment as a materials handler supervisor due to disqualifying misconduct. The record establishes that claimant returned late from lunch and had not punched in or out, as required. When his supervisor refused to sign claimant’s time card verifying his return time, claimant became upset and began yelling. Although claimant was informed that he would not be penalized for his conduct, claimant continued to argue in a loud manner and physically threatened his supervisor. As a result, claimant was discharged. When he refused to leave the premises, the police were called.

Contentious or threatening behavior has been held to constitute disqualifying misconduct *(see Matter of Livadas [Commissioner of Labor],*3 AD3d 656 [2004]; *Matter of Quinones [Tops Mkts.—Commissioner of Labor],*251 AD2d 743 [1998]). Claimant’s assertions that he did not act in a threatening manner and that the events surrounding his discharge were exaggerated created a credibility issue for the Board to resolve *(see Matter of Ramos [Commissioner of Labor],*306 AD2d 791 [2003]; *Matter of Hawana [New York City Dept. of Citywide Admin.*Servs.— *Commissioner of Labor],*285 AD2d 800, 801 [2001]). Under these circumstances, we will not disturb the Board’s decision.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 479 Filed: 02/19/19 Entered: 02/19/19 15:44:48 Page 1 of 2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 479 Filed: 02/19/19 Entered: 02/19/19 15:44:48 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                            7057
<SECURITIES>                                     27283
<RECEIVABLES>                                    42347
<ALLOWANCES>                                      2045
<INVENTORY>                                        566
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 78222
<PP&E>                                           17118
<DEPRECIATION>                                    6872
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  104244
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            29759
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         50616
<OTHER-SE>                                       17578
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    104244
<SALES>                                         120775
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                120775
<CGS>                                            27424
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    60369
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 15309
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1090
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  14009
<INCOME-TAX>                                      5720
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               8289
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      8289
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .54
        

</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AND EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(b)
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. of the
Company.
 Date: August 5, 2005
    
    /s/ René J. RobichaudRené J. RobichaudChief Executive OfficerNS Group, Inc.
#### The Hamilton Coal Company, Appellant, v. Edward C. Warner and others, Respondents.

Judgment affirmed.

Opinion by

Haight, J.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6528

JOSEPH P. SMITH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ED BANKS,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CA-95-562-5-H)

Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 4, 1996

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph P. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North

Carolina, 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 order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to

appeal; to the extent that a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. Smith v. Banks, No. CA-95-562-5-H

(E.D.N.C. Mar. 28, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED