alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fifth Season International Inc.: Exhibit 10.15 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






Exhibit 10.15

Loan Agreement 


	Main contents: 



	Contract No.: nil
  
	Borrower: The Fifth Season General Merchandise Investment
  Management Co., Ltd.
  
	Lender: Mingyou Chen
  
	Loan Amount (RMB): 33 million RMB Yuan
  
	Contract Term: from February 21, 2011 to May 20, 2011
  
	Interest Rate: 


  
	The monthly interest rate is 1.9%;
  
	Penalty interest rate for delayed repayment: 0.5% of the non-repaid loan
  per day; 


  

	Rights and Obligations of the Lender: 


  
	Lender shall disburse the loan in a timely manner pursuant to the
  agreement.
  
	Lender shall execute the mortgage right in case of breach of contract of
  the Company. 


  

  	
 Rights and obligations of the borrower 

    


  
    	Borrower is entitled to obtain and use the loan pursuant to the agreement.

  
	Borrower shall return the principal and interests timely. Borrower can
  extend the term of the loan when getting the consent of Lender pursuant to the
  agreement.
  
	Consent of Lender should be obtained when any of the Borrower’s guaranties
  or mortgages on his (her) major assets for a third party is possible to be
  detrimental to Borrower’s capability of repayment under the agreement.
  
	Borrower guarantee all of its statement is true and accurate
  
	Borrower bears the relevant fees under the agreement. 


  

	Prepayment of the Loan: 


  
Lender’s consent should be obtained if Borrower is willing to
prepay the loan. The interest rate of prepayment shall accord with the
agreement. 

  

	Liabilities of Breach of Contract: 


  
Penalty interest rate for delayed repayment: 0.5% of the
non-repaid loan per day. Liquidated damages for 20% of the loan shall be imposed
on the Company and the guarantor and mortgagor in case of the Company ’s breach
of contract etc. 

  

	Guarantee of the loan: 


  
The loan is secured by Mortgage Contract by .the Company. 

  



	Headlines of the articles omitted 



	Dispute settlement
  
	Miscellaneous
  
	Effectiveness
  
	Mortgage and Guarantee Clause
  
	Attention 










Signature Page 

Party A (Lender): Mingyou Chen 

By: /s/ Mingyou Chen 

Date: February 21, 2011 

Party B (Borrower): The Fifth Season General Merchandise Investment
Management Co., Ltd. 

Representative: Lide Zhu 

By: /seal/ the Fifth Season General Merchandise Investment Management Co.,
Ltd. 

/s/ Lide Zhu 

Date: February 21, 2011 

Party C (Mortgager): The Fifth Season General Merchandise Investment
Management Co., Ltd. 

Representative: Lide Zhu 

By: /seal/ the Fifth Season General Merchandise Investment Management Co.,
Ltd. 

/s/ Lide Zhu 

Date: February 21, 2011
PUBLISH

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 1/14/97

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v.

ALBERT FOSTER, JR.,

Defendant-Appellee. 

No. 95-7131

ORDER

Before ANDERSON, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

The United States has filed a petition for rehearing in this case, arguing

that the panel failed to “address controlling Supreme Court authority” in

affirming the district court’s order of blanket suppression. We deny the petition

for rehearing. In doing so, we make the following observations.

The United States argues that, properly interpreted, Waller v. Georgia, 467

U.S. 39 (1984), allows the remedy of blanket suppression only when the officers

conducting a search exceed the warrant with regard to the range of places to be
-2-

searched. The problem with this argument, however, is that this panel is not free

to adopt the United States’ interpretation of Waller. 

In United States v. Medlin, 842 F.2d 1194, 1198-99 (1988), a panel of this

court cited Waller as one of several cases standing for the proposition “that even

evidence which is properly seized pursuant to a warrant must be suppressed if the

officers executing the warrant exhibit ‘flagrant disregard’ for its terms.” The

panel in Medlin went on to hold that “[w]hen law enforcement officers grossly

exceed the scope of a search warrant in seizing property, the particularity

requirement is undermined and a valid warrant is transformed into a general

warrant thereby requiring suppression of all evidence seized under that warrant.” 

Id. at 1199 (emphasis added). Accordingly, a panel of this court has already

determined that Waller supports the remedy of blanket suppression in the context

of an overly broad seizure. As noted in the panel opinion in this case, a threejudge panel cannot disregard or overrule circuit precedent. United States v.

Foster, 100 F.3d 846, 851 (10th Cir. 1996). Absent en banc reconsideration,

which the United States has not suggested, or a superseding contrary decision by

the Supreme Court, this panel is obligated to apply the interpretation of Waller set

out in Medlin. In re Smith, 10 F.3d 723, 724 (10th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 115

S. Ct. 53 (1994).
-3-

Judge Anderson would also deny the petition for rehearing but does not

otherwise join this order.

The petition for rehearing is hereby DENIED. 

Entered for the Court

Michael R. Murphy

Circuit Judge
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 26, 2016

No. 04-15-00536-CV

Romeo LONGORIA, et al.,

Appellants

v.

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, et al.,

Appellees

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Brooks County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13-12-16488-CV

Honorable Richard C. Terrell, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Appellees’ motion for leave to file a sur-reply brief is GRANTED. Appellees’ sur-reply 

brief was filed on April 14, 2016.

It is so ORDERED on April 26, 2016.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ________________________________

 Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
S. 4089 

One Hundred Seventeenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty two 

An Act 

To restore entitlement to educational assistance under Veterans Rapid Retraining 

Program in cases of a closure of an educational institution or a disapproval 

of a program of education, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterans Rapid Retraining Assistance Program Restoration and Recovery Act of 2022’’. 

SEC. 2. RESTORATION OF ENTITLEMENT UNDER VETERANS RAPID 

RETRAINING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 8006 of the American Rescue Plan 

Act of 2021 (Public Law 117–2), as amended by the Training in 

High-demand Roles to Improve Veteran Employment Act (Public 

Law 117–16), is further amended— 

(1) by redesignating subsection (n) as subsection (o); and 

(2) by inserting after subsection (m), the following new 

subsection (n): 

‘‘(n) EFFECTS OF CLOSURE OF AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION

OR DISAPPROVAL OF A PROGRAM OF EDUCATION.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Any payment of retraining assistance 

under subsection (d)(1) shall not be charged against any entitlement to retraining assistance described in subsection (a) if 

the Secretary determines that an individual was unable to 

complete a course or program of education as a result of — 

‘‘(A) the closure of an educational institution; or 

‘‘(B) the disapproval of a program of education by the 

State approving agency or the Secretary when acting in 

the role of the State approving agency. 

‘‘(2) PERIOD NOT CHARGED.—The period for which, by reason 

of this subsection, retraining assistance is not charged shall 

be equal to the full amount of retraining assistance provided 

for enrollment in the program of education. 

‘‘(3) HALT OF PAYMENTS TO CERTAIN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS.—In the event of a closure or disapproval, as described 

in paragraph (1), the educational institution shall not receive 

any further payments under subsection (d). 

‘‘(4) RECOVERY OF FUNDS.—In the event of a closure or 

disapproval, as described in paragraph (1), any payment already 

made under subsection (d) to the educational institution shall 

be considered an overpayment and constitute a liability of 

such institution to the United States.’’. 
S. 4089—2 

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—In subsection (b)(3) of such section, strike the period and insert ‘‘, except for an individual 

described in subsection (n).’’. 

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section 

shall apply as if included in the American Rescue Plan Act of 

2021 (Public Law 117–2). 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
EXHIBIT 31.3



Certification of Principal Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 / SEC Rule 13a14(a)



I, Jeremy Ferrell, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Path 1 Network Technologies Inc.



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 the 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 quarterly 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 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(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 data; 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.



Date: November 14, 2005

|                               
|-------------------------------
|                               
|/s/ Jeremy Ferrell             
|Jeremy Ferrell                 
|Interim Chief Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

THOMAS WEBSTER,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

NATALIE HASKINS, Director, Haskins

House State Wide Transitional Re

- Entry

Program,

Defendant

- Appellee, No. 22

- 15545

D.C. No. 1:18

- cv

- 01640

- BAM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Barbara McAuliffe, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 3, 2023 * *

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Thomas Webster , a civil detainee of the California Department of State

Hospitals, appeals pro se from the district court ’ s grant of summary judgment in

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Natalie Haskins alleging constitutionally

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

NOV 3 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

inadequate medical care. We affirm.

To show a constitutional violation

, Webster must demonstrate that Haskins

acted with “objective deliberate indifference.” Gordon v. County of Orange , 888

F.3d 1118, 11 24

- 25 (9th Cir. 2018)

. Webster contends that Haskins ’s actions

resulted in a delay in the delivery of his pramipexole prescription for restless leg

syndrome and sleep aid, thus causing him injury. The district court properly

granted summary judgment to Haskins because Webster failed to establish that

Haskins acted with deliberate indifference or that his injury was a reasonably

foreseeable result of any delay in the receipt of this prescription

. Russell v.

Lumitap , 31 F.4th 729, 739 (9th Cir. 2022) (explaining the objective deliberate

indifference standard)

.

Following the district court’s screening of his complaint pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) , Webster elected to proceed only against Haskins for alleged

violation of the Fourteenth Amendment for inadequate medical care, and he

voluntarily dismissed all other defendants and all other claims. Accordingly, we

decline to consider Webster’s waived claims against other p ersons concerning

other conditions of his confinement. Lacey v. Maricopa Cty. , 693 F.3d 896, 928

(9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (dismissed claims that are not repled are waived).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Webster’s motion

to appoint an expert witness on his behalf because Webster must bear his own3

witness and discovery costs

. See Tedder v. Odel , 890 F.2d 210, 211

- 12 (9 th Cir.

1989) (expenditure of public funds on indigent litigants’ discovery fees not

authorized by Congress)

.

Webster’s motion for leave to declare fraud on the court and relief from

judgment is denied.

AFFIRMED.
#### N. W. WARREN v. LITTLETON ORANGE CRUSH BOTTLING COMPANY, INC.

(Filed 31 October, 1934.)

Appeal and Error P a—

Where defendant’s sole exception is to the judgment, and the judgment is supported by the findings of fact to which no exception is taken, the judgment must be affirmed on appeal.

Civil actioN, before *Moore, Special J.,*at Chambers, 15 February, 1934. From Halifax.

This action was instituted to recover the sum of $720.00, which the plaintiff alleges was due the plaintiff by virtue of the terms of a written contract, dated 31 October, 1931. The defendánt denied the indebtedness and alleged that the claim of plaintiff constituted usury.

All parties agreed that the trial judge should find the facts. Accord’ ingly, it was found that the said sum of $720.00 demanded by plaintiff represented interest on a $12,000 note due the plaintiff by O. E. Carter, W. A. Carter, and Mrs.Yerbena Carter, and that said note was part of the original purchase price of certain property purchased by the defendant from the plaintiff, and that the $720.00 “agreed to be paid by the defendant and involved in this suit represented the interest due on the $12,000 balance of the purchase price of said corporate property,” etc. It was further agreed “that the court shall enter judgment for the plaintiff if he shall find from the foregoing facts that the charge of $720.00 is not .an usurious one,” etc. In the judgment entered, the court declared that '“the contract executed by defendant to plaintiff for the sum of $720.00 is not an usurious one, and that the plaintiff is entitled to recover of •defendant the sum of $720.00,” etc.

From the foregoing judgment the defendant appealed. The only exception is as follows: “To the action of the court in signing the judgment as set out in the record, and to the judgment.”

*Julian B. Allsbrooh and Cromwell Daniel for plaintiff.*

*Geo. C. Green for defendant.*

*314Pee CukiaM.

In *Wilson v. Charlotte,*206 N. C., 856, it was said: “Tbe only assignment of error in tbe case at bar is tbe ‘signing of tbe judgment, . . . having duly excepted to tbe signing of said judgment.’ If said assignment merely refers to tbe act of signing tbe judgment, it presents no question of law for review. But, upon tbe other band, if it be treated cas an exception to tbe judgment, it presents tbe single question whether tbe facts found or admitted are sufficient to support tbe judgment.’ ”

So, in tbe present case there is no exception to tbe finding of fact that tbe claim was not usurious, and consequently tbe judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 7, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 12588]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5435]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM


Forms Submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for 
Extension of Clearance

    The following forms, to be used only in the event that inductions 
into the armed services are resumed, have been submitted to the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) for the extension of clearance in 
compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S. Chapter 35):

SSS-254

    Title: Application for Voluntary Induction.
    Purpose: Is used to apply for voluntary induction into the Armed 
Services.
    Respondents: Registrants or nonregistrants who have attained the 
age of 17 years, who have not attained the age of 26 years and who 
have not completed his active duty obligation under the Military 
Selective Service Act.
    Frequency: One-time.
    Burden: The reporting burden is twelve minutes or less per 
individual.

SSS-350

    Title: Registrant Travel Reimbursement Request.
    Purpose: Is used to request reimbursement for expenses incurred 
when traveling to or from a Military Entrance Processing Station in 
compliance with an official order issued by the Selective Service 
System.
    Respondents: All registrants required to travel to or from a 
Military Entrance Processing Station at their own expense.
    Frequency: One-time.
    Burden: The reporting burden is ten minutes or less per request.

    Copies of the above identified forms can be obtained upon written 
request to Selective Service System, Reports Clearance Officer, 1515 
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22209-2425.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed extension of 
clearance of the form(s) should be sent within 60 days of publication 
of this notice to Selective Service System, Reports Clearance Officer, 
1515 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22209-2425.
    A copy of the comments should be sent to the Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer, Selective Service 
System, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, 
Room 3235, Washington, DC 20503.

    Dated: February 22, 1995.
Gil Coronado,
Director.
[FR Doc. 95-5435 Filed 3-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8015-01-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-10407

Easthill Group, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
Golden State Vintners, Inc.        Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings        (In thousands, except per share data)

Exhibit 11

Basic
and fully diluted earnings (loss) per share ("EPS") are determined as follows:

|                        |                                            | Three Months
Ended
September 31,
|----------------------- | ------------------------------------------ | --------------------------------
|
|
|                        |                                            |                                 
|Basic EPS Computation   |                                            |                                 
|Numerator:              |                                            |                                 
|                        | Net income (loss)                          |                                 
|                        |                                            |                                 
|Denominator:            |                                            |                                 
|                        | Weighted average common shares             |                                 
|                        |                                            |                                 
|Basic EPS               |                                            | $                               
|                        |                                            |                                 
|Diluted EPS Computation |                                            |                                 
|Numerator:              |                                            |                                 
|                        | Net income (loss) and assumed conversions  |                                 
|                        |                                            |                                 
|Denominator:            |                                            |                                 
|                        | Weighted average common shares outstanding |                                 
|                        | Stock options                              |                                 
|                        |                                            |                                 
|                        | Adjusted weighted average common shares    |                                 
|                        |                                            |                                 
|Diluted EPS             |                                            | $                               
|                        |                                            |                                 

---

QuickLinks