alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.13

THE CHARLOTTE  MARDEN 1993 TRUST
1290 South Ocean Boulevard
Palm Beach, Florida 33480



June 29, 2001


nStor Technologies, Inc.
10140 Mesa Rim Road
San Diego, CA  92121

Gentlemen:

The maturity date of the following  note due to The Charlotte  Marden 1993 Trust
from nStor Technologies, Inc. is hereby extended to August 31, 2001:

        Subordinated Promissory Note for $450,000, dated June 7, 2001.

All other terms of the note remain the same.

                                      The Charlotte Marden 1993 Trust

                                      By:  /s/ Bernard A. Marden, Trustee
                                         --------------------------------
Sales and Purchase Contract


Exhibit 4.20




Sales and Purchase Contract on Pelletizing Iron Concentrate 




The Seller:Wuhu Feishang Mining Development Co., Ltd.             Contract No.:FSK13-01

The Buyer:Wuhu Fuxin Steel Co., Ltd.                  




Based on friendly consultations, the seller and the buyer reached to the following agreement on the sales of iron concentrates:




1.

The seller provided the appropriate monthly quantity of products to the buyer and the price was based on monthly negotiation, i.e marketing price.   

2.

The place of delivery was in the pounds room of Yangchong yard. The sold quantity was settled based on the weighing list of the seller, and the buyer could send its representative to supervise the weighing.

3.

The seller together with the buyer took the samples from the yard of the seller. The sample was triplicate, one for each party and another for arbitration. The test results would be subjected to the seller. If there was any discrepancy, the buyer could put forward to arbitration. The arbitration was Maanshan Mining Research Institute. 

4.

Payment was in advance and then delivery. The price was based on 65% of Total Fe(“TFe”). If TFe65% rose 1%, the price was plus CNY30/T, while declining 1%, the price reduced CNY30/T.

5.

The seller should ensure that Tfe was equal 65%, sulfur(“S”) was less than or equal 1.0%, silica(“SiO2”) was less than or equal 3.5%, phosphorus(“P”) was less than or equal 0.1%, and 200 mesh was more than or equal 68%. If S≤1.0% rose 0.01, the price reduced CNY0.1/T. If 200 mesh ≥68% declined 1%, the price reduced CNY5/T

6.

The seller provided 17% value-added-tax invoice to the buyer and the settlement was on a month basis.

7.

The outstanding issues not set out in the contract was settled based on the two parties’ negotiation. 

8.

The terms of the contract was from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013.




The Buyer

Names of The Buyer: Wuhu Fuxin Steel Co., Ltd.

Legal Representative:

A/C with Bank: Anhui Fanchang Rural Cooperative Bank Xingang Branch

A/C no: 

Tax ID no.: 

Zip Code: 

Tel: (0553) 7915693/7915811

Address: Xingang Industrial Park, Fanchang ,Wuhu




The Seller

Names of The Seller: Wuhu Feishang Mining Development Co., Ltd.

Legal Representative:

A/C with Bank: ICBC Fanchang Branch

A/C no: 

Tax ID no: 

Zip Code: 241202

Tel: (0553) 7337509

Address: Xiaokeshan, Xingang , Fanchang ,Wuhu 




Signature Date: January 1, 2013
#### In the Matter of H. Amelia Bedford.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
Order entered March 5, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01585-CV

ROBIN LOUISE THOMAS, Appellant

V.

DONALD ALLIE AND JACKIE MCCLINTOCK AS REPRESENTATIVES 

OF THE ESTATE OF THI PHAM, Appellees

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-08195

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s second opposed motion to extend time to file 

her jurisdictional letter brief addressing the timeliness of the appeal. We GRANT

the motion and ORDER the brief be filed no later than April 2, 2020. In light of 

the narrow issue appellant needs to address, we caution that further extension 

requests will be disfavored and that the appeal may be dismissed if the letter brief 

is not timely filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a),(c).

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF PARADYNE NETWORKS, INC.

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 Paradyne Networks, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Sean E. Belanger, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) The Report 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ Sean E. Belanger                           
|Sean E. Belanger                               
|Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
|Date: May 10, 2005                             



21
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 2, 2014

No. 04-14-00808-CV

EX PARTE Jose L. VILLARREAL

Original Habeas Corpus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On November 20, 2014, relator filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. The court 

has considered relator’s petition and is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief 

sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.8(a). The court’s opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on December 2nd, 2014.

_____________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

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

court on this 2nd day of December, 2014.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2005EM502156, styled In the Interest of J.I.V. and E.M.V., Children, 

pending in the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Nick Catoe Jr. presiding.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                   Jan-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                     Dec-31-1996
<CASH>                                               275,638 
<SECURITIES>
<RECEIVABLES>                                         39,367 
<ALLOWANCES>
<INVENTORY>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     661,775 
<PP&E>                                             8,370,993  
<DEPRECIATION>                                     2,596,827
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     7,008,331
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              2,265,136
<BONDS>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>
<PREFERRED>
<COMMON>
<OTHER-SE>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       7,008,331  
<SALES>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   2,078,756
<CGS>
<TOTAL-COSTS>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>
<LOSS-PROVISION>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   289,184
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       75,550
<INCOME-TAX>
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   75,550
<DISCONTINUED>
<EXTRADORINARY>
<CHANGES>
<NET-INCOME>
<EPS-PRIMARY>
<EPS-DILUTED>
        

</TABLE>
#### W. R. Yowell v. State.

No. 24995.

December 20, 1950.

*Florence & Florence,*and *Harry L. Williams,*Gilmer, for appellant.

*333
      *George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

GRAVES, Judge.

The conviction is for a violation of the state food and drug law. The penalty assessed is a fine of $100.00.

Appellant was convicted under the following allegation in the information:

> “ * * * did then and there unlawfully manufacture for sale, and have in his possession with the intent to sell, and offer to sell an article of food which was then and there adulterated in this, to-wit:

> “A substance, to-wit: saccharin, was then and there mixed with said article of food so as to lower and injuriously affect the quality and strength of said article, of food, and a valuable constituent of said article, to-wit: sugar, was then and there wholly and in part abstracted therefrom, and said article was below the standard of quality and purity represented to the consumer thereof; and said article was an article used by man for drink, and was then and there an article so used as a beverage, and was then and there commonly known by the name of orange drink being also called soda water,” etc.

There are two bills of exception in the record.

Bill No. 2 is disapproved by the trial judge and disallowed and is therefore not considered by us.

Bill No. 1 complains of the insufficiency of the information on many grounds. Suffice it to say that the information seems to be in accord with Willson’s Criminal Forms, (5th Edition), Form No. 325, page 208. See Dorsey v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 527, 44 S.W. 514; Ex parte Drane, 80 Tex. Cr. R. 543, 191 S.W. 1156. We think the information alleged the constituent elements of an offense.

The testimony shows that to an extent sugar had been replaced by saccharin in the manufacture of this orange drink, thus adulterating the same and lowering its quality and strength.

No error being shown, the judgment will be affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
                                                       EXHIBIT 27

This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2000, and the Consolidated
Statement of Income for the six months ended June 30, 2000, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      447,081
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    136,057
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         132,845
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                         7,582
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 723,565
<COMMON>                                       119,250
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                        (226)
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            133,136
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 252,160
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           18,000
<PREFERRED>                                     15,500
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           188,875
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              21,137
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    8,508
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 219,385
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  723,565
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      268,484
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            10,886
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     230,984
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     241,870
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         26,614
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               1,207
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  27,821
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         8,244
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,577
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        939
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   18,638
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        12,163
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        8,105
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          17,696
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .78


</TABLE>
#### John Briley, Plaintiff in Error, *v.*Alfred Copeland, Defendant in Error.

EBB OB TO MASSAC.

A justice of the peace lias jurisdiction to the amount of one hundred dollars, in an action against a constable for non-feasance. A party may, at his election, sue the constable directly, or bring an action against him and his sureties, on his official bond.

This case is stated in the opinion of the court. The cause was heard before Denning, Judge, at the June term, 1851, of the Massac Circuit Court.

R. S. Nelson, for plaintiff in error.

C. G. Simons and J. Allen, for defendant in error.

Teeat, C. J.

The record shows that Briley brought an action on the case, before a justice of the peace, against Copeland, for non-feasance in office as constable. The damages were laid in the summons at $50. The trial resulted in a judgment in favor of Copeland. Briley prosecuted an appeal to the circuit court, where the suit was dismissed on the ground that the justice was without jurisdiction. The 17th sect, ch. 59, R. S., declares that justices of the peace shall have jurisdiction, “in all actions against sheriffs, coroners, and constables, for malfeasance, misfeasance, or non-feasance in office, *39wherein the amount claimed does not exceed one hundred dollars.” The justice clearly had jurisdiction of the case, and the circuit court consequently erred in dismissing it. The remedy given by sect. 118, ch. 59, R. S., is but cumulative. A party may, at his election, sue the constable directly, or bring an action against him and his sureties on his official bond.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

*Judgment reversed.*
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - [Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0447]

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the following meeting: Achieving a Future Vision at the 2008 Parenteral Drug Association and the Food and Drug Administration Joint Regulatory Conference. The topics to be discussed are: FDA's Pharmaceutical Inspectorate and the Global Harmonization Task Force; Trans Atlantic initiative; Product development; and legacy products; Supply chain; Combination products; and Recall root causes.

*Date and Time*: The meeting will be held on September 8 through 12, 2008, 7 a.m. to 6.                

*Location*: The meeting will be held at Renaissance Hotel, 999 9th St., NW., Washington, DC 20001.                

*Contact*: Wanda Neal-Ballard, Parenteral Drug Association, PDA Global Headquarters, Bethesda Towers, 4350 East West Hwy., Suite 200, Bethesda, MD 20814 or by telephone on 301-986-0293, ext. 111.                

*Registration and Meeting Information*: See PDA Web site,                     *www.pda.org/​pdafda2008*                     or contact Wanda Neal-Ballard on 301-986-0293, ext. 111. From now until August 25, 2008, registration fees are as follows: $1,600.00 for Members, $2,000.00 for Non-members, $615.00 for Government/Health Authority/Academic and $230.00 for Students. After August 25, 2008, registration fees are as follows: $1,800.00 for Members, $2,200.00 for Non-members, $700.00 for Government/Health Authority/Academic and $260.00 for Students.                

If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Wanda Neal-Ballard at least 7 days in advance.

Dated: August 18, 2008.

Jeffrey Shuren,

Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.

[FR Doc. E8-19491 Filed 8-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Equity Inns, Inc.
(the "Company") for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Phillip
H. McNeill, Sr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350 as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

         (1) the Report 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.







March 12, 2004                                  By:/s/ Phillip H. McNeill, Sr.
                                                       -------------------------
                                                Name:  Phillip H. McNeill, Sr.
                                                Title:   Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 13.1


CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(B) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934





In connection with the amended Annual Report of Hollysys Automation Technologies Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Changli Wang, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, that:





(1) The Report 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company as of June 30, 2011 and results of operations of the Company for the year ended June 30, 2011.





/S/ Changli WangName:
Changli WangTitle:
Chief Executive OfficerDate:
December 8, 2011





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of this Annual Report or as a separate disclosure document.
#### Henry H. Petze, Appellant, v. Daniel J. Leary, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed on argument, with costs. Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.
H. R. 6267 

One Hundred Seventeenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-two 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 15 Chestnut 

Street in Suffern, New York, as the ‘‘Sergeant Gerald T. ‘Jerry’ Donnellan Post 

Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SERGEANT GERALD T. ‘‘JERRY’’ DONNELLAN POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 15 Chestnut Street in Suffern, New York, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Sergeant Gerald T. ‘Jerry’ 

Donnellan Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Sergeant Gerald T. ‘Jerry’ Donnellan Post Office’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### Ken TIPTON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. INTERNET ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC., a corporation; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 03-55023. D.C. No. CV-98-07520-R.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 21, 2003.*

Decided July 24, 2003.

Before LEAYY, HAWKINS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Ken Tipton appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for an extension *654of time in which to file a notice of appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(a)(5). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion whether a party has shown excusable neglect in failing to file a timely notice of appeal. *See United States v. Green,*89 F.3d 657, 660 (9th Cir.1996).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that Tipton’s attorney’s mistaken belief that the time period for appeal begins to run upon notice of entry of judgment rather than upon entry of judgment does not constitute excusable neglect. *See Kyle v. Campbell Soup Co., 28*F.3d 928, 931 (9th Cir.1994).

Contrary to Tipton’s contention, the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to consider other factors, as outlined in *Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship,*507 U.S. 380, 392, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993). *See Kyle,*28 F.3d at 931 (recognizing that although *Pioneer*interprets excusable neglect as a “flexible, equitable concept,” an attorney’s misinterpretation of a clear and unambiguous federal rule generally does not constitute excusable neglect).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

19 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual report of Sentry Petroleum Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended February 28, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul Boldy, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1)

The Report 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------
|                                                      
|/s/ Paul Boldy                                        
|Paul Boldy                                            
|Chief Financial Officer                               
|(Principal Financial and Principal Accounting Officer)





Date:  May 31, 2011

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Sentry Petroleum Ltd. and will be retained by Sentry Petroleum Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.