alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 1501
JTH TAX, INC., d/b/a Liberty Tax Service , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. CHARLES HINES , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Rebecca Beach Smith , Chief District Judge. ( 2:15

- cv
- 00558

- RBS

- RJK )

Submitted : September 28, 2018 Decided: October 28, 2018

Before WILKINSON and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Charles Hines , Appellant Pro Se. Jason Eli Ohana , WILLCOX & SAVAGE, PC , Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding prece dent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Defendant Charles Hines appeal s the district court’s order s accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and dismissing his counterclaims alleging breach of contract, fraud, and related claims against Plaintiff J TH Tax, Inc. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. JTH Tax, Inc. v.
Hines , No. 2:15

- cv
- 00558

- RBS

- RJK (E.D. Va. Aug

. 2 4 , 2017; Mar. 2, 2018). 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
**EXHIBIT 10.20(b)**AMENDMENT NO. 1TOEMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
 

 
This AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is entered into as ofDecember 31, 2006, by and between Terry White, an individual (the “Executive”), andSuperconductor Technologies Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), with reference tothe following facts: A. The Company and Executive entered into an Employment Agreement dated April11, 2005 (the “Agreement”).  B. The parties with to revise the terms and conditions of the Agreement tocomply with the deferred compensation rules per Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) Section409A and to modify related sections of the Agreement.NOW, THEREFORE, based on the above premises and for good and valuable consideration, theparties agreed as follows: 1. Involuntary Termination Payments. If the individual is a “specifiedemployee” as defined in IRC Section 409A(a)(2)(B)(i) at the time of separation fromservice, all severance and bonus payments due under Section 6.1.1 of the Agreementwill be paid to Executive on the 183rd day after the date of termination ofExecutive and all insurance coverage under Section 6.1.2 of the Agreement shallcommence on the 183rd day after the date of termination of Executive.  2. Change in Control. If the individual is a “specified employee” asdefined in IRC Section 409A(a)(2)(B)(i) at the time of separation from service, allpayments due Executive under Section 7.1 of the Agreement will be paid to Executive onthe 183rd day after Executive’s termination per Section 7.1.3 of theAgreement.  3. 409A Compliance. A new section 22 is added to the Agreement to readas follows:    “Section 409A. The parties acknowledge and agree that, to the extentapplicable, this Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with Section 409A ofthe Code and the treasury regulations and other interpretive guidance issuedthereunder, including without limitations any such regulations or other guidancethat may be issued. Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to thecontrary, in the event that the Company determines that any amounts payablehereunder will be immediately taxable to the Participant under Section 409A of theCode and related treasury regulations, the Company may (a) adopt such amendments tothis Agreement and appropriate policies and procedures, including amendments andpolicies with retroactive effect, that the Company determines necessary orappropriate to preserve the intended tax treatment of the benefits provided by thisAgreement and/or (b) take such other
 

 
   actions as the Company determines necessary or appropriate to comply with therequirements of Section 409A of the Code and treasury regulations, including suchtreasury regulations and other interpretive materials as may be issued in thefuture.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties has executed this Agreement, in the case of the Company byits duly authorized officer, as of the day and year first above written.       EXECUTIVE         /s/Terry White              COMPANY          /s/John D. Lockton     By: John D. Lockton    As Its: Chairman of the Board
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 29, 2024

No. 04-24-00207-CR

IN RE Christopher-Jarvis PAYNE

Original Proceeding1

ORDER

On March 22, 2024, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. After considering the 

petition, this court concludes relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition 

for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

It is so ORDERED on May 29, 2024.

_____________________________

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

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

court on this 29th day of May, 2024.

_____________________________

Luz Estrada, Chief Deputy Clerk

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2021CR3349, 2022CR6932, styled State of Texas v. Christopher Payne, 

pending in the Criminal District Court, Magistrate Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Andrew Carruthers

presiding.
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-2018-0025-7221

MAHLE Behr USA, 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 concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6947

Integrity Fusion, 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 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
1 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 18, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

___________________________ No. 03-10421

___________________________ In the Matter of: JOHN ROBERDEAU; ROBERT GEISLER; STAGE FRIGHT, LLC; GEISLER ROBERDEAU INC. Debtors BRIARPATCH LIMITED LP; GERARD F. RUBIN, Appellants,

VERSUS SCOTT M. SEIDEL, Trustee; JOHN ROBERDEAU, ROBERT GEISLER, Appellees consolidated with

___________________________ No. 03-10475

___________________________ In the Matter of: JOHN ROBERDEAU; ROBERT GEISLER; STAGE FRIGHT, LLC; GEISLER ROBERDEAU INC. Debtors

GERALD F. RUBIN; BRIARPATCH LIMITED LP, Appellants,

VERSUS SCOTT M. SEIDELL, Chapter 7 Trustee; JOHN ROBERDEAU, ROBERT GEISLER, Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division

3:01-CV-1971-L1 Pursuant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limit ed circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 2 Before DAVIS, WIENER and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: 1 These two consolidated appeals arise from the bankruptcy of John Roberdeau, Robert Geisler, Stage Fright, LLC, and Geisler Roberdeau Inc. (the “Debtors”), and are one part of a mass of litigation between the parties. In Case No. 03-10421, Appellant challenges the bankruptcy court’s sale of estate property at auction to the Debtors. However, an appeal of a sale by the bankruptcy court does not affect the validity of a sale in good faith unless the authorization and sale were stayed pending appeal. 11 U.S.C. § 363(m). The Appellants failed to obtain a stay. We accept the bankruptcy court’s implicit finding of good faith on the part of the Debtors made in its bench ruling of June 13, 2001. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as moot. See Ginther v. Ginther Trusts (In re Ginther Trusts) , 238 F.3d 686 (5th Cir. 2001); In re Gilchrist , 891 F.2d 559 (5th Cir. 1990). In Case No. 03-10475, Appellant challenges the abandonment to the Debtors by the Trustee of certain causes of action of the Debtors. The Appellants failed to timely appeal the Abandonment Order or timely request an extension of the deadline to appeal, electing rather to file a Motion to Vacate the Abandonment Order which the bankruptcy court denied and the district court affirmed. We review the bankruptcy court’s decision on the Motion to Vacate for abuse of discretion. In this case of intentional abandonment by the Trustee, the bankruptcy court correctly concluded that the abandonment was final upon entry of its order and that it had no authority to grant relief related to that property. See Collier on Bankruptcy , § 554.02[3]. The3

district court correctly affirmed the bankruptcy court as the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in abandoning the causes of action to the Debtors or in refusing to revisit that decision in response to the Motion to Vacate.
Case No. 03-10421 - APPEAL DISMISSED. Case No. 03-10475 - AFFIRMED.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

August 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6508

David C. Poole Company:

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 did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of China Health Industries Holdings, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ending  March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the “Report”), I, Xin Sun, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350), that to my knowledge:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and





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




/s/Xin
      SunXin
      SunChief
      Financial Officer




Date:  May
14, 2010
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of Edmonds
1, Inc. for the quarter ending April 30, 2005, I, Richard Neussler, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Edmonds 1, Inc. hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

     1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending April
          30, 2005, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
          the quarter ending April 30, 2005, fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
          Edmonds 1, Inc.

Dated:  June 13, 2005

EDMONDS 1, INC.

By: /s/ Richard Neussler
-------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
China TMK Battery Systems Inc.: Exhibit 10.24 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






Exhibit 10.24

Loan Agreement (Mid/Long Term)


No. (2009) Zhen Zhongyin Small/Medium Enterprise Jie Zi
No.10035

Borrower: Shenzhen Bo Rou Industrial Co., Ltd.

Lender: Bank of China Shenzhen Branch 

Main Contents:

The Lender will lend RMB40 million to the Borrower and the
proceeds will be used for cash flow and fixed assets. The term of the loan is 36
months commencing from the actual drawdown date. The interest rate is floating
10% above the interest rate for one to three years loan promulgated the People’s
Bank of China and determined every three months. The interest will be paid on a
monthly basis. The Borrower needs to repay the loan in installments, which are
RMB 1 million each month from August 15th, 2011 to July
15th, 2012, and then RMB 8 million on and before August
5th, 2012, and RMB20 million will be repaid upon the expiration of
the loan. If the Borrower wishes to repay the loan early, it needs to notify the
Lender in writing 30 days in advance, and the Lender has the right to charge 2%
of the early repaid amount to cover the loss of the interest.

Drawdown. The Borrower shall drawdown all the amount of the
loan within 180 days from August 1st, 2009.

Method of the Security. the guaranty provided for the loan is
third parties’ guaranty and mortgage.

Insurance. The Borrower shall insure any projects, equipment
and transportation under this contract with an insurance company approved by the
Lender, and provide the insurance policy to the Lender within 30 days after this
contract becomes effective. The insurance payment shall be used for repayment of
this loan and the interest first.

Penalty interest. The Borrower will be charged penalty interest
that is 50% of the normal interest under the contract if it fails to repay the
loan on time. The Borrower will be charged penalty interest that is 100% of the
normal interest under the contract if it does not use the proceeds into the
purpose specified in the contract.

Other Charge. The Borrower will be charged RMB 1.2 million, of
which RMB 400,000 is payable every year before August 30th.

Headings of the articles omitted:


	Dispute Resolution
  
	Representations and Warranties
  
	Effectiveness, Amendment, Termination of the Contract 
	Reservation of Rights 
	Event of Default
  
	Miscellaneous 


	Signature 
	 
	August 5th , 2009
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2
 RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of FedFirst Financial Corporation;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 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 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 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 registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 Date: August 10, 2007
    /s/ Robert C. Barry Jr.Robert C. Barry Jr.Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President
(Principal Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5420 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5420

  To require the Secretary of Labor to issue guidance and regulations 
  regarding opioid overdose reversal medication and employee training.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 12, 2023

Mrs. Watson Coleman (for herself, Mr. Rutherford, Mr. Trone, Ms. Mace, 
 Ms. Pettersen, Mr. Tonko, Ms. Norton, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Cardenas, Mr. 
Casten, Ms. Crockett, Ms. Lee of California, Ms. Salinas, Mr. Grijalva, 
 Mr. Carson, Mr. Carter of Louisiana, and Ms. Jackson Lee) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education 
                           and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the Secretary of Labor to issue guidance and regulations 
  regarding opioid overdose reversal medication and employee training.

    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 ``Workplace Overdose Reversal Kits to 
Save Lives Act'' or the ``WORK to Save Lives Act''.

SEC. 2. NON-MANDATORY GUIDANCE FOR EMPLOYERS CONCERNING OPIOID OVERDOSE 
              REVERSAL MEDICATION.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 270 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor, acting through the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, shall issue nonmandatory 
guidance to employers on--
            (1) acquiring and maintaining opioid overdose reversal 
        medication; and
            (2) training employees on an annual basis on the usage of 
        such medication.
    (b) Employer Defined.--In this section, the term ``employer'' has 
the meaning given such term in section 3 of the Occupational Safety and 
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 652), except that such term does not 
include the United States Postal Service.

SEC. 3. MANDATORY REGULATIONS FOR FEDERAL AGENCIES CONCERNING OPIOID 
              OVERDOSE REVERSAL MEDICATION.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 270 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor, acting through the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, shall issue regulations 
to require each Federal agency to--
            (1) acquire and maintain opioid overdose reversal 
        medication; and
            (2) train employees on an annual basis on the usage of such 
        medication.
    (b) Federal Agency Defined.--In this section, the term ``Federal 
agency'' means any agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government, 
including the Veterans Health Administration, notwithstanding section 
7425(b) of title 38, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```