alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fifthe Season International, Inc.: Exhibit 10.27 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






Exhibit 10.27

Sale Contract, dated February 10, 2010, between The Fifth
Season (Zhejiang) Trade Co., Ltd. 
and Hangzhou Hengding Plastic & Wood
Tools Co., Ltd 

Seller (Party A): The Fifth Season (Zhejiang) Trade Co., Ltd.


Buyer (Party B): Hangzhou Hengding Plastic & Wood Tools
Co., Ltd 

Pursuant to the provisions of the Contract Law of PRC, relevant
laws and administrative regulations, and the principal of equality,
voluntariness and honesty, both parties enter into this agreement regarding the
purchase of LED lights series and electricity-saving lamps. 

1. Name, Quantity and Price 


	No. 	Name of Product 	Unit 	Quantity 	Unit Price (RMB) 	Total Value (RMB) 
	1 	LED Pointolite 	set 	8,600 	675 	5,805,000 
	4 	Electricity-saving Lamp (80W) 	piece 	6900 	145 	1,000,500 
	Total value 	6,805,500 



2. Payment Method and Deadline: cash on delivery. 

3. Delivery Time: before March 10, 2010 

4. Delivery Ways: Party A shall deliver the goods to the
warehouse appointed by Party B. 

5. Packing Standard: common cartons for packing 

6. Transportation: by truck 

7. Fees: Party A is liable for packing and transportation fees.


8. Company for Goods Collecting: Hangzhou Hengding Plastic
& Wood Tools Co., Ltd. 

9. After-sale Services: Party A shall be liable for technique
support and product quality. Party A shall also offer one year guarantee for
product quality. Party A shall offer maintenance with charge of basic cost for
other issues caused except for product quality. 

10. Liability for Breach 

1) In case that Party A fails to deliver the goods or Party B
rejects the goods without payment, the foregoing default party shall pay the
liquidated damages of 30% of the total payment of the goods. 




2) As to overdue delivery/collection or deferred payment, the
foregoing default party shall pay the liquidated damages of 0.5‰ of the due
payment per day. 

11.This agreement has been entered into in compliance with laws
and neither party shall not alter or rescind this agreement without consensus.
The alteration or rescission can only be accepted upon consensus. 

12. This agreement has four counterparts and each party has two
counterparts. 

13. Any disputes related to this agreement can be brought to
Hangzhou People’s Court if both parties cannot reach consensus. 




(This page is for signature only and has no text.) 

Party A (Seller): The Fifth Season (Zhejiang) Trade Co., Ltd

By: /sealed/The Fifth Season (Zhejiang) Trade Co., Ltd 
Opening
Bank: Agricultural Bank of China, Hangzhou Wangjiang Branch 
Bank No.:
005701040009886 
Date: February 10, 2010 

Party B (Buyer): Hangzhou Hengding Plastic & Wood Tools
Co., Ltd. 
By: /sealed/Hangzhou Hengding Plastic & Wood Tools Co.,
Ltd. 
Opening Bank: Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, Baoshu
Branch 
Bank No.: 1202022719900105672 
Date: February 10, 2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
     FROM THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE HOLT GROUP, INC.
     AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF AND FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999
     AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED
     FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          11,595
<SECURITIES>                                    30,790
<RECEIVABLES>                                  115,090
<ALLOWANCES>                                    14,137
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               163,809
<PP&E>                                         268,423
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (77,275)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 444,393
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          153,597
<BONDS>                                         51,250
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   444,393
<SALES>                                        155,332
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               186,174
<CGS>                                          154,779
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  161,135
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,744
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,295
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,295
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,295
<EPS-BASIC>                                   132.95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   132.95




</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 7554

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
SHAREEF WILLIAMS , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. R. Bryan Harwell , Chief District Judge. ( 4:17

- cr - 00465

- RBH

- 1 )

Submitted : July 22, 2021 Decided: August 2, 2021

Before MOTZ, KING, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Shareef Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Justin William Holloway, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Shareef Williams , a federal prisoner, appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. Upon review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the pertinent 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed against compassionate
releas e. See United States v. High , 997 F.3d 181 , 188

- 91 (4th Cir. 2021) . Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No.
333-101124 and 333-101123) pertaining to (i) the Mariner Health Care, Inc. 2002
Stock Incentive Plan and (ii) the Mariner Health Care, Inc. 2003 Outside
Directors' Stock Incentive Plan, of our report dated February 20, 2004 with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Mariner Health
Care, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2003.


Ernst & Young LLP

March 12, 2004
Atlanta, Georgia
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 22, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-60483 Summary Calendar

EUI SOO JUNG, Petitioner,
versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

No. A78 918 208

--------------------
Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Eui Soo Jung has filed a petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily dismissing his appeal as barred by his waiver of appeal before the immigration judge (“IJ”). Because it is plain on the record that Jung waived his right to appeal, the BIA was authorized to dismiss his appeal summarily without further briefing. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(G),No. 05-60483 -2- (e)(3). The BIA’s finding that Jung made no argument in his notice of appeal challenging that waiver is conclusive, because no reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. See id. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Because Jung did not raise, before the BIA, a challenge to the validity of his appeal waiver, he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Accordingly, this court is precluded from reviewing his argument that the appeal waiver was not made knowingly and intelligently. See § 1252(d)(1). Similarly, we will not address Jung’s argument, not raised before the BIA, that he was denied due process before the IJ because he did not have representation by counsel. The petition for review is DENIED. Jung’s motion for stay of removal pending resolution of the petition for review is DENIED.
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 41 (Thursday, March 2, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 11698]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5318]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------6
351-01

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Tuesday, March 28, 1995.

PLACE: 2033 K St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 8th Floor Hearing Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Enforcement Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-254-6314.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 95-5318 Filed 2-28-95; 3:32 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

-3.61 -4.35 0.89 1.01 25% 23%

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2023 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actuary

Social Security Administration

September 15, 2023

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Payroll Taxes (including maximum taxable)

Current law

[percent of payroll]

Change from current law

[percent of payroll] Shortfall eliminated

Proposed Provision: E1.10. Increase the payroll tax rate by 0.1 percentage point per year for 2025 through 

2034 so that it equals 13.4 percent for 2034 and later. The increase would be split evenly between the 

employer and employee share, and would be split between OASI and DI in proportion to currently 

scheduled payroll tax rates.

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2023 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

Percent

Year

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

Income rates under current law

Income rates with this provision

Cost rates under current law

Cost rates with this provision

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2023 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

Percent

Year

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

Current law With this provision
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 17, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-10448

Ellison Educational Equipment Inc: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Government Accountability Office

# AGENCY:

Government Accountability Office (GAO).

# ACTION:

Request for letters of nomination and resumes.

# SUMMARY:

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) established the Health Information Technology Policy Committee (HIT Policy Committee) and gave the Comptroller General responsibility for appointing 13 of its 20 members. As a result of terms ending in April 2016, GAO is accepting nominations of individuals for three openings on the committee in the following categories of representation or expertise required in ARRA: Advocate for patients or consumers, representative of a health plan or third party payer, and representative of purchasers or employers. For appointments to the HIT Policy Committee to be made in April 2016 in these categories, I am announcing the following: Letters of nomination and resumes should be submitted by March 2, 2016 to ensure adequate opportunity for review and consideration of nominees. Acknowledgement of submissions will be provided within one week of submission. Please contact Mary Giffin at (202) 512-3710 if you do not receive an acknowledgment.

# ADDRESSES:

                        Email:                         *HITCommittee@gao.gov*; Mail: U.S. GAO, Attn: HITPC Appointments, 441 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20548.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

GAO Office of Public Affairs, (202) 512-4800. 42 U.S.C. § 300jj-12.

Gene L. Dodaro,

Comptroller General of the United States.

[FR Doc. 2016-02009 Filed 2-3-16; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 1610-02-M
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. §1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of HF Financial Corp. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Curtis L. Hage, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



/s/ CURTIS L. HAGE Curtis L. Hage, Chairman, President and Chief Executive OfficerDate: September 10, 2010


---

---



QuickLinks
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<LEGEND> THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CORPORATIONS FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JANUARY 31, 1999, AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

      <MULTIPLIER> 1

      <S>                           <C>
      <PERIOD-TYPE>                        YEAR
      <FISCAL-YEAR-END>             JAN-31-1999
      <PERIOD-END>                  JAN-31-1999
      <CASH>                            845,668
      <SECURITIES>                            0
      <RECEIVABLES>                   1,085,257
      <ALLOWANCES>                            0
      <INVENTORY>                             0
      <CURRENT ASSETS>                1,930,925
      <PP&E>                             18,722
      <DEPRECIATION>                     (2,187)
      <TOTAL ASSETS>                  5,704,750
      <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             596,216
      <BONDS>                                 0
      <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
      <PREFERRED>                             0
      <COMMON>                        7,432,421
      <OTHER-SE>                              0
      <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    5,704,750
      <SALES>                                 0
      <TOTAL-REVENUES>                        0
      <CGS>                                   0
      <TOTAL COSTS>                   1,367,215
      <OTHER EXPENSES>                        0
      <LOSS PROVISION>                        0
      <INTEREST EXPENSE>                (40,865)
      <INCOME PRETAX>                (1,396,418)
      <INCOME-TAX>                          800
      <INCOME CONTINUING>            (1,397,218)
      <DISCONTINUED>                          0
      <EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
      <CHANGES>                               0
      <NET-INCOME>                   (1,397,218)
      <EPS-BASIC>                        (.09)
      <EPS-DILUTED>                        (.09)
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed

January 24 , 2013 .

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14
- 13
- 00032
- CR NO. 14
- 13
- 0003 3
- CR

IN RE BRANDON CAINES , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING S WRIT OF MANDAMUS 183rd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 1274700 and 127470 1 M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N On January 14, 2013, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this Court to compel the Honorable Vanessa2

Velasquez , presiding judge of the 183rd District Court of Harris County to rule on his motion to obtain documents and tr ial records

. To be entitled to mandamus relief in a criminal case, a relator must show that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act, not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana , 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding). When a motion is properly filed and pending before a trial court, the act of considering and resolving it is ministe rial, not discretionary. Ex parte Bates, 65 S.W.3d 133, 134

- 35 (Tex.App.

- Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). This court is empowered to compel by writ of mandamus a district court to consider and rule on properly filed pending motions if (1) relator has ask ed the trial court to rule, and (2) the trial court either refused to rule or failed to rule within a reasonable time. See Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426, 427 (Tex.App.

- Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding); Von Kolb v. Koehler, 609 S.W.2d 654, 655

- 56 (Tex.Civ.App.

- El Paso 1980, no writ). There is no bright

- line rule establishing a reasonable time period. Ex parte Bates, 65 S.W.3d at 135. Some of the factors involved in the determination include the trial court's actual knowledge of the motion, any overt refusal to act on it, and the state of the trial court's docket. See id. (citing Stoner v. Massey, 586 S.W.2d 843, 846 (Tex.1979)). A relator has the burden of providing this court with a sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relie f. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex.1992) (orig. proceeding); see Tex. R. App. P. 52.3, 52.7.3

In this case, the motion s relator claims w ere filed in the trial court do not reflect a file

- stamp from the 1 83rd District Court and therefore do not demonstrate the motion s are actually pending in the trial court. Absent a showing the motions were filed and the trial court is aware of the motion s , relator has not established his entitlement to the extraordinary reli ef of a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Christopher, and Jamison. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).