alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.37



 Exhibit 10.37 

This is a translation of the original text in Chinese 

SPOUSAL CONSENT 
 I, Jin
WANG (ID card No.: ***), the legitimate spouse of Weiqin QIU, hereby affirm and unconditionally and irrevocably agree that the shares of Guangzhou Kingsoft Network Technology Co., Ltd. held by and registered under the name of my spouse shall be
disposed of in accordance with the arrangements under the Loan Agreement signed on the date of August 5, 2013, the Exclusive Equity Option Agreement, Shareholder Voting Proxy Agreement and the Equity Pledge Agreement
signed on the date of September 1, 2013, as well as all powers of attorney, undertaking letter or other documents signed in accordance with the aforesaid agreements by my spouse (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Control
Agreements”). 
 I hereby further undertake that I shall not engage in any act that may conflict with the aforesaid arrangements,
including asserting any personal or community property rights over the above-said shares and any related rights and interests. I hereby further agree and undertake that if, for any reason, I own any shares of Guangzhou Kingsoft Network Technology
Co., Ltd., I shall be bound by the Control Agreements, and I shall perform all the shareholder obligations pursuant to the Control Agreements. In addition, to achieve the same objective, upon a request made by Guangzhou Kingsoft Network Technology
Co., Ltd., I shall sign a series of agreements in the form of the Control Agreements. 
  

			
	Signature:	 	 /s/ Jin WANG

		
	Date:	 	 September 1, 2013
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34407-34408]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16763]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No.96-138, RM-8822]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Shell Knob, MO

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition filed by Galen 
Gilbert proposing the allotment of Channel 249A at Shell Knob, 
Missouri, as that community's first local service. The coordinates for 
Channel 249A are 36-42-51 and 93-34-36. There is a site restriction 
10.5 kilometers northeast of the community. Petitioner has been 
requested to provide information demonstrating that Shell Knob 
qualifies as a community for allotment purposes. Since Shell Knob is 
located inside the Mark Twain National Forest, petitioner has also been 
requested to provide information showing a site is available that will 
provide city grade coverage to the community.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before August 12, 1996, and reply 
comments on or before August 27, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In 
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should 
serve the petitioner's counsel, as follows: William J. Pennington, III, 
Post Office Box 1447, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina 29465.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.96-138, adopted June 14, 1996, 
and released June 21, 1996. The full text of this Commission decision 
is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the Commission's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., 
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be 
purchased from the Commission's copy contractors,

[[Page 34408]]

International Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 
140, Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857-3800.
    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply 
to this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are 
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve 
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 
permissible ex parte contact.
    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-16763 Filed 7-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 106 

To require that all individuals convicted of a felony under State law provide 

a DNA sample. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 6, 2009 

Mr. VITTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To require that all individuals convicted of a felony under 

State law provide a DNA sample. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘DNA Felony Collection 

5 Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DNA COLLECTION. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General of the 

8 United States shall enter into an agreement with each 

9 State under which the State shall— 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•S 106 IS

1 (1) collect a DNA sample from each individual 

2 convicted of a felony under the laws of the State; 

3 and 

4 (2) include the results of a DNA analysis of 

5 each DNA sample collected under paragraph (1) in 

6 an index of DNA analysis records maintained by the 

7 State or by the Federal Government. 

8 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 

9 (1) the terms ‘‘DNA analysis’’ and ‘‘DNA sam10 ple’’ have the meanings given those term in section 

11 3(c) of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act 

12 of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135a(c)); and 

13 (2) the term ‘‘State’’ means any State of the 

14 United States, the District of Columbia, the Com15 monwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, 

16 Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the 

17 Northern Mariana Islands, and any possession of the 

18 United States. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 48 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 890 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 890

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     November 18, 2009.
Whereas the Republic of India achieved its independence from the British Empire 
        on August 15, 1947, and has since maintained a democratic system of 
        government;
Whereas from April 16 to May 13, India conducted the world's largest democratic 
        election, which returned Prime Minister Singh to power;
Whereas India's relationship with the United States has deepened in past years 
        and encompasses cooperation on matters relating to international 
        security, world trade, technology, science, and health;
Whereas the relationship between the United States and India has great potential 
        to promote stability, democracy, prosperity, and peace throughout the 
        world and enhance the ability of both countries to work together to 
        provide global leadership in areas of mutual concern and interest;
Whereas the Prime Minister of India, His Excellency Dr. Manmohan Singh, has 
        helped shape India's economic policies to permit the expansion of a 
        market economy, which has led to greater economic prosperity for India 
        and the growth of a middle class;
Whereas Americans of Indian origin have made diverse and numerous contributions 
        to the United States; and
Whereas Prime Minister Singh has accepted an invitation by the United States to 
        make an official visit to Washington, DC, and is the honoree of 
        President Barack Obama's first State Dinner: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) commends the maturating of the relationship between the United 
        States and the Republic of India, exemplified by the current official 
        visit of the Prime Minister of India, His Excellency Dr. Manmohan Singh;
            (2) looks forward to continuing progress in the relationship between 
        the United States and India; and
            (3) welcomes Prime Minister Singh to the United States.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### Freeman et al. v. City of Cleveland.

(No. 23370

Decided February 24, 1932.)

*Mr. Harold T. Gassaway,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Mr. Harold H. Burton,*director of law, *Mr. Henry 8. Brainard, Mr. Erwin Boers*and *Mr. Norman A. Ryan,*for defendant in error.

It is'ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Jones, Matthias, Day and Kinkade, JJ., concur.

Stephenson, J., not participating.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6630

LEVONE JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM W. SONDERVAN, Commissioner of Corrections; RONALD HUTCHINSON, MHC Warden; PRISON HEALTH SERVICES; THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND HOSPITAL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA00-3595-PJM) Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 19, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Levone Jones, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Sharon Stanley Street, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Levone Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order that granted summary judgment to William Sondervan and Ronald Hutchinson, and dismissed all claims against Prison Health Services and the University of Maryland Hospital. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Jones’ notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on April 24, 2001. Jones’ notice of appeal was filed on April 16, 2002. Because Jones failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny Jones’ motion for appointment of counsel and a medical expert witness. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the3 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 99.2

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

I, William E.
Hitselberger, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of
PMA Capital Corporation, do hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the information contained in the Annual Report of
PMA Capital Corporation on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002,
 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PMA
Capital Corporation.

| |  |                                                                                   
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 
| |  |                                                                                   
| |  | /s/ William E. Hitselberger                                                       
| |  | William E. HitselbergerSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer andTreasurer
| |  |                                                                                   
| |  | March 20, 2003                                                                    

---
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 920 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 920

      Directing the Attorney General to transmit to the House of 
 Representatives all information in the Attorney General's possession 
    regarding certain matters pertaining to detainees held at Naval 
   Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba who are transferred into the United 
                                States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 19, 2009

  Mr. Smith of Texas (for himself, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Poe of 
    Texas, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Coble, Mr. Gallegly, Mr. Chaffetz, Mr. 
 Sensenbrenner, Mr. Harper, Mr. Jordan of Ohio, Mr. Rooney, Mr. Daniel 
 E. Lungren of California, Mr. Issa, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Goodlatte, 
and Mr. Forbes) submitted the following resolution; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
      Directing the Attorney General to transmit to the House of 
 Representatives all information in the Attorney General's possession 
    regarding certain matters pertaining to detainees held at Naval 
   Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba who are transferred into the United 
                                States.

    Resolved, That the Attorney General is directed to transmit to the 
House of Representatives, not later than 14 days after the date of the 
adoption of this resolution, copies of any document, record, memo, 
correspondence, or other communication of the Department of Justice, 
including the Office of the Solicitor General, or any portion of any 
such communication, that refers or relates to--
            (1) any legal guidance or recommendations made since 
        January 20, 2009, regarding additional legal rights or 
        protections, including under the Constitution, statutes, and 
        treaties, detainees held at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, 
        Cuba, receive when transferred into the United States from such 
        Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; or
            (2) pretrial detention, post conviction incarceration, or 
        transportation within the United States, of detainees held at 
        Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who are to be transferred 
        into the United States for prosecution and trial in the United 
        States District Court of the Southern District of New York.
                                 <all>
```
*Order Entered October 29, 2002:*

#### Rose v Stokely,

Docket No. 241029.

The Court orders that a special panel shall be convened pursuant to MCR 7.215(1) to resolve the conflict between this case and *Thompson v Merritt,*192 Mich App 412; 481 NW2d 735 (1991).

The Court further orders under MCR 7.215(T)(5) that the portion of the opinion concerning the conflict addressed in section in of the opinion released October 1, 2002, is vacated.

The appellant may file a supplemental brief within 21 days of the Clerk’s certification of this order. Appellee may file a supplemental brief within 21 days of service of appellant’s brief. Nine copies must be filed with the Clerk of the Court.

McDonald, X, did not participate
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 122 (Monday, June 24, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 32428]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15937]



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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force


USAF Scientific Advisory Board Meeting

    The AFMC Test Center Advisory Group (TCAG) & AFDTC Subcommittee, 
Scientific Advisory Board Summer Study will take place on 23 July 1996, 
at Eglin AFB, FL from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    The purpose of the meeting is for the members to gather data in 
support of the Test Center Advisory Group.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with Section 
552b of Title 5, United States Code, specifically subparagraphs (1) and 
(4) thereof.
    For further information, contact the Scientific Advisory Board 
Secretariat at (703) 697-8404.
Patsy J. Conner,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-15937 Filed 6-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3910-01-W
PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 93-5703

KEVIN J. DAUGHTRY,

Defendant-Appellant.

On Remand from the United States Supreme Court.

(S. Ct. No. 94-9473)

Submitted: November 30, 1995

Decided: August 7, 1996

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by published opinion. Judge Wilkins wrote the

opinion, in which Judge Widener and Judge Williams joined.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

John Frank Hardaway, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.

J. Preston Strom, Jr., United States Attorney, Dean Arthur Eichelberger, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

WILKINS, Circuit Judge:

Kevin J. Daughtry's appeal of his conviction for knowingly and

willfully making false statements in a matter within the jurisdiction
of a department of the United States, see 18 U.S.C.A. § 1001 (West

1976), is once again before this court. In our initial decision, we

affirmed Daughtry's conviction, concluding that the district court did

not err in failing to instruct the jury that it must find that he acted with

an intent to disobey or disregard the law in order to convict him of

violating § 1001. United States v. Daughtry, 48 F.3d 829 (4th Cir.

1995). But, while his petition for a writ of certiorari was pending, the

Supreme Court decided United States v. Gaudin , 115 S. Ct. 2310

(1995). Thereafter, the Court vacated our decision and remanded for

reconsideration in light of Gaudin. Daughtry v. United States, 116 S.

Ct. 510 (1995).

We conclude that the Gaudin decision provides no basis for reconsideration of the issues addressed in our original decision. Gaudin

held only that in prosecutions for violations of§ 1001, the element of

materiality must be submitted to the jury. See Gaudin, 115 S. Ct. at

2320. In contrast, our prior decision rejected Daughtry's sole argument that the district court had erred in refusing to charge the jury that

it must find that he acted with an intent to disobey or disregard the

law in order to have acted willfully within the meaning of § 1001. See

Daughtry, 48 F.3d at 831-32. Therefore, we continue to reject

Daughtry's argument for the reasons fully set forth in our previous

opinion. See id.

Nevertheless, we now vacate Daughtry's conviction and remand

for further proceedings. The record indicates unmistakably that the

district court instructed the jury that the question of materiality of the

statement was an issue for the court, not the jury, and further charged

the jury that the statement was material. Although this charge was

correct when given, see, e.g., United States v. Arch Trading Co., 987

F.2d 1087, 1095 (4th Cir. 1993), as the Government now concedes,

it is indisputably erroneous in light of Gaudin .

We vacate Daughtry's conviction and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

VACATED AND REMANDED

 2
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1204 

To amend the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Programs Enhancement Act of 2001 to require the provision of chiropractic care 

and services to veterans at all Department of Veterans Affairs medical 

centers, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 8, 2009 

Mrs. MURRAY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care 

Programs Enhancement Act of 2001 to require the provision of chiropractic care and services to veterans at all 

Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Chiropractic Care 

5 Available to All Veterans Act of 2009’’. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with BILLS
2 

•S 1204 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROGRAM FOR PROVISION OF CHIROPRACTIC 

2 CARE AND SERVICES TO VETERANS. 

3 Section 204(c) of the Department of Veterans Affairs 

4 Health Care Programs Enhancement Act of 2001 (Public 

5 Law 107–135; 38 U.S.C. 1710 note) is amended— 

6 (1) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ before ‘‘The program’’; 

7 and 

8 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

9 paragraph: 

10 ‘‘(2) The program shall be carried out at not fewer 

11 than 75 medical centers by not later than December 31, 

12 2009, and at all medical centers by not later than Decem13 ber 31, 2011.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on PRODPC75 with BILLS
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-50806

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Eduardo Reyes-Aguilar, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:20-CR-1422-1

Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Eduardo ReyesAguilar has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 

632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Reyes-Aguilar has not filed a response. We 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 11, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-50806 Document: 00516089865 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/11/2021
No. 20-50806

2

have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from 

further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th 

Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 20-50806 Document: 00516089865 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/11/2021
- 1

- 

### S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

**C O U R T O F A P P E A L S**

UNPUBLISHED

In re M

. HAMMOND , Minor. November 1, 2018

No. 343822

Bay Circuit Court

Family Division

LC No. 15

- 011898

- NA

Before: C AVANAGH

, P .J., and M ARKEY and L ETICA , JJ.

L ETICA

, J. ( concurring )

.

I concur in result only.

/s/ Anica Letica