alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Baby Fox International, Inc.: Exhibit 10.2 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






Exhibit 10.2

TERMINATION AGREEMENT 

This Termination Agreement ("Termination Agreement") is entered
into as of June 30, 2011 (the "Effective Date"), between Baby Fox International,
Inc., a Nevada corporation (“Client”), and Beijing AllStar Business Consulting,
Inc., a People’s Republic of China registered corporation (“Consultant”). Client
and Consultant are hereinafter referred to as the “Parties”.

WITNESSETH: 

WHEREAS, the Parties entered into a certain Consulting
Agreement dated May 18, 2007 (the “Original Consulting Agreement”) and
subsequently amended and restated the Original Consulting Agreement into a
certain Amended and Restated Consulting Agreement (the “Consulting Agreement”)
as of April 28, 2008, pursuant to which Consultant agreed to render services to
Client on a non-exclusive basis and on the terms and for the consideration
specified herein Consulting Agreement.

WHEREAS, the Parties desire to terminate the Consulting
Agreement as more particularly set forth herein. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the
respective covenants and agreements contained herein, the Parties hereto agree
as follows: 

1.       All capitalized terms
used herein that are not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective
meanings ascribed to them in the Consulting Agreement. 

2.       In consideration for the
mutual release set forth herein, the Consulting Agreement shall terminate as of
the Effective Date.

3.       Each party hereby
releases the other party from all claims, demands, debts, liabilities, costs,
expenses, including attorneys' fees, and causes of action of any kind
whatsoever, known or unknown, which each party has or may have under the
Consulting Agreement as of the Effective Date, including any registration rights
of Consultant pursuant to Section 3.04 of the Consulting Agreement.

4.       This Termination
Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts each of which shall be
deemed an original. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of People’s Republic of China, without respect to its
conflicts of law principles. 

1 




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Parties has caused this
Termination Agreement to be signed and delivered by its duly authorized officer
as of the date first written above. 

BABY FOX INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

By: /s/ Jieming
Huang                                         
 
Name: Jieming Huang 
Title: Chief Executive Officer 


BEIJING ALLSTAR BUSINESS CONSULTING, INC. 

By:   /s/ Fred
Chang                                                 

Name: Fred Chang 
Title: President 


2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

DANIEL KING, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

RIVERWATCH CONDOMINIUM 

OWNERS ASSOCIATION, 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 489 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 29th day of December, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED. 

Mr. Justice Eakin did not participate in the decision of this matter.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4900 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4900

 To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit institutions of 
 higher education participating in Federal student assistance programs 
from giving preferential treatment in the admissions process to legacy 
                          students or donors.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 26, 2023

Mr. Bowman (for himself, Ms. Bush, Mr. Carter of Louisiana, Mr. Casar, 
Ms. Chu, Ms. Clarke of New York, Mr. Cleaver, Ms. Dean of Pennsylvania, 
    Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Evans, Mr. Frost, Mr. Garcia of Illinois, Mr. 
Grijalva, Ms. Norton, Mr. Huffman, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Ms. Jackson 
 Lee, Ms. Jacobs, Ms. Jayapal, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Khanna, Mr. 
Kim of New Jersey, Ms. Lee of California, Ms. Lee of Pennsylvania, Mr. 
  McGovern, Ms. Meng, Mr. Mfume, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Norcross, Ms. Ocasio-
   Cortez, Mr. Pocan, Ms. Pressley, Ms. Sanchez, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. 
Schiff, Mr. Takano, Ms. Tlaib, Ms. Tokuda, Mr. Torres of New York, and 
Ms. Velazquez) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit institutions of 
 higher education participating in Federal student assistance programs 
from giving preferential treatment in the admissions process to legacy 
                          students or donors.

    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 ``Fair College Admissions for Students 
Act''.

SEC. 2. BAN ON LEGACY OR DONOR PREFERENCES IN ADMISSIONS.

    (a) In General.--Section 487(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
(20 U.S.C. 1094(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(30) The institution will not provide any manner of 
        preferential treatment in the admission process to applicants 
        on the basis of their relationships to--
                    ``(A) donors to the institution; or
                    ``(B) alumni of the institution.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on the first day of the second award year (as defined in 
section 481(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1088(a)) 
that begins after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3667

SPM Flow Control, Inc. DBA Weir SPM:

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 the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

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
Exhibit 10.4

THIRD  AMENDMENT  TO  EMPLOYMENT  AGREEMENT  between  Greg  Manning and Company,
Effective as of July 1, 1999

THIRD AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the "Amendment"),  made as of this 29th
day of  September  1999 and  effective  as of July 1, 1999,  by and between Greg
Manning  Auctions,  Inc., a New York corporation  having its principal office at
775 Passaic Avenue,  West Caldwell,  New Jersey 07006 (the "Company"),  and Greg
Manning, [address omitted] (the "Executive").

WHEREAS,  the Company and the  Executive  entered into an  Employment  Agreement
dated as of May 14, 1993,  as amended by an  amendment  effective as of June 30,
1995 and by a second amendment effective as of July 1, 1997 (the "Agreement");

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Agreement in certain
respects;

NOW, THEREFORE,  in consideration of the mutual promises  hereinafter set forth,
the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto,
desiring to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows:

1.  Paragraph  1 of the  Agreement  is hereby  amended to extend the term of the
Agreement to June 30, 2000  (subject to earlier  termination  as provided in the
Agreement).

2.Paragraph 3(a) of the Agreement is hereby amended to delete the first sentence
thereof and insert in lieu thereof the following:

         (a) For the full, prompt and faithful  performance of all of his duties
         and services  hereunder,  the Company shall pay the Executive an annual
         base  salary of  $300,000  per year for the  period  of his  employment
         hereunder.

3   All capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have their
respective meanings as set forth in the Agreement.

4.This Amendment shall be effective for all purposes as of July 1, 1999.  Except
as hereby amended, all the terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in
full force and effect.

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the parties  hereto have executed this Amendment as of the
date first above written.

GREG MANNING AUCTIONS, INC.


  /s/ Greg Manning
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4833

Arrowhead Electrical Products, 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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2809

Aerus LLC: 

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/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_05.09.19.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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-01-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,501
<ALLOWANCES>                                       177
<INVENTORY>                                     66,574
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               107,475
<PP&E>                                         113,826
<DEPRECIATION>                                  54,897
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 172,903
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           82,594
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           32,242
<PREFERRED>                                          5
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                   (153,723)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   172,903
<SALES>                                        312,546
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               312,546
<CGS>                                          298,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  298,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,126
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,340
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (19,920)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        64
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (20,014)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (20,014)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (4.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (4.57)


</TABLE>
TAYLOR ASHLEY WRIGHT,

FORMER WIFE

,

Appellant,

v.

JEFFREY DAVID WRIGHT,

FORMER HUSBAND

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF I F FILED

CASE NO. 1D 17

- 2547

_____________________________/

Opinion filed August 24, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County

. Mary Polson , Judge

.

E. Jane Brehany, Pensacola , for Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

PER CU RIAM.

DISMISSED

.

LEWIS, RAY, and JAY, J J

. , CONCUR.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Benitez, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Levy, J.), rendered April 8, 1987, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [1]) and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from 4 to 8 years, unanimously affirmed.

*101On appeal, defendant claims that the identification testimony should have been suppressed. Great weight must be accorded the determination of the hearing court, with its particular advantage of having seen and heard the witnesses *(People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759, 761), and its determination will not be disturbed unless the testimony presented by the People is "inherently incredible or improbable” *(People v Samuels,*68 AD2d 663, 666, *affd*50 NY2d 1035). The record indicates that the People have met their burden of demonstrating the nonsuggestive nature of the police procedures with respect to the photographic identification *(People v Rahming,*26 NY2d 411, 416) and the lineup *(United States v Wade,*388 US 218).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milenas, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

RANDAL W. HOWARD,

 Defendant - Appellant,

 and

DEPARTMENT OF ARIZONA

REVENUE,

 Defendant.

No. 10-15644

D.C. No. 4:07-cv-00620-DCB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

FILED

JUL 7 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-15644

Randal W. Howard appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

judgment for the government in its action to reduce to judgment unpaid tax

assessments and foreclose on federal tax liens on Howard’s property. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Hughes v. United States,

953 F.2d 531, 541 (9th Cir. 1992), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Howard

failed to controvert the government’s Certificates of Assessments and Payments

demonstrating that the assessments were properly made. See id. at 540

(Certificates of Assessments and Payments are “probative evidence in and of

themselves and, in the absence of contrary evidence, are sufficient to establish that

. . . assessments were properly made.”). Accordingly, the district court properly

concluded that Howard’s property could be sold to satisfy his tax debt. See 26

U.S.C. §§ 7402(a), 7403(a).

Howard’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
Form of the Registrant's Common Share Certificate



 Exhibit 4.1 
 



 
 UAG 
 UNION AGRICULTURE GROUP CORP 
 INCORPORATED UNDER
THE LAWS OF THE BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS 
 SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS 

CUSIP G9055P 10 2 
 COMMON SHARES 
 THIS CERTIFIES THAT 

IS THE OWNER OF 
 FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE COMMON SHARES, NO PAR VALUE PER SHARE, OF 
 UNION AGRICULTURE GROUP CORP 
 CERTIFICATE OF
SHARES 
 transferable only on the books of the Corporation in person or by duly authorized attorney upon
surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not valid unless countersigned and registered by the Transfer Agent and Registrar. 
 WITNESS the facsimile signatures of the Corporation’s duly authorized officers. 
 Dated: 
 EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN AND DIRECTOR

 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND DIRECTOR 
 COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED: 
 Equity FInancial
Trust Company 
 200 University Avenue, Suite 400 

Toronto, ON M5H 4H1 CO-TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR 

BY 
 AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE 
 COUNTERSIGNED AND
REGISTERED: 
 AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER TRUST& COMPANY, LLC 

(New York, NY) 
 CO-TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR BY 
 AUTHORIZED
SIGNATURE 







 



 
 UNION AGRICULTURE GROUP CORP 

The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though
they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: 
 TEN COM – as tenants in common
UNIF GIFT MIN ACT–.Custodian. 
 TEN ENT – as tenants by the entireties (Cust) (Minor) 

JT TEN – as joint tenants with right of under Uniform Gifts to Minors survivorship and not as tenants Act. in common
(State) 
 Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. 

For value received, hereby sell, assign and transfer unto 

PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE 

(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE) 

Of the Common Shares represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint 

Attorney to transfer the said Shares on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the
premises. 
 Dated 
 NOTICE: The signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as written upon the face of the certificate, in every particular, without alteration or enlargement, or any change
whatever. 
 SIGNATURE(S) GUARANTEED: 
 THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE
GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 13, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4937

Duravant LLC and FMH Conveyors Americas:

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 the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests and 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