alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-35 (e)
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.


March 15, 2007

Deutsche Alt-A Securities, Inc

RE: Annual Statement As To Compliance for Deutsche Alt-A Securities, Inc.
Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2006-AF1

Per Section 3.16 (a) of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of
3/1/2006, the undersigned Officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (Master Servicer),
hereby certifies the following for the 2006 calendar year or portion thereof:

(A)  a review of such party's activities during the preceding calendar year or
     portion thereof and of such party's performance under this Agreement, or
     such other applicable agreement in the case of a Servicing Function
     Participant, has been made under such officer's supervision and

(B)  to the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, such party
     has fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement, or such other
     applicable agreement in the case of any such Servicing Function
     Participant, in all material respects throughout such year or portion
     thereof, or, if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligation in
     any material respect, specifying each such failure known to such officer
     and the nature and status thereof.


Certified By:
/s/ Reid Denny
Reid Denny, Vice President

Certified By:
/s/ Gordon Johnson
Gordon Johnson, Assistant Secretary
Exhibit 10.1

nStor Technologies, Inc.

July 31, 2004

Hilcoast Development Corp.1601 Forum Place, Suite 500West Palm Beach, Florida  33417Attn:  Mark F. Levy

Dear Mr. Levy:

We have agreed to the following amendments to that certain Promissory Note, dated June 30, 2003, in the amount of $2,806,744 (the “Note”), as amended on December 31, 2003 increasing the outstanding principal of theNote to $2,919,937, as amended on April 30, 2004 increasing the outstanding principal of the note to $2,997,164 with a maturity date of July 31, 2004 (“Amended Note”), payable by nStor Technologies, Inc. to Hilcoast Development Corp., copies of which areattached hereto. 

1)            The maturity date of the Amended Note is hereby extended from July 31, 2004 to October 31, 2004 (“Maturity”).

2)            Accrued and unpaid interest on the Amended Note through July 31, 2004 in the amount of $60,271 is hereby added to the $2,997,164 principal amount of theAmended Note so that as of the date hereof, the principal amount of the Amended Note has been increased to $3,057,435 (the “New Principal Amount”).  Interest at the rate of eight percent (8%) per annum will accrue on the unpaid New Principal Amountand be payable at Maturity.

Except as set forth in this letter, the Note remains unmodified and in full force and effect. 

Please indicate your concurrence with the foregoing.

Sincerely,

                                                                                             Hilcoast Development Corp.

/s/ Jack Jaiven                                                                        Agreed By: /s/ Mark F. LevyJack Jaiven                                                                             Mark F. LevyVice President and Treasurer                                                  Vice President and Secretary

JJ/tw

**1601 Forum Place * Suite 500 * West Palm Beach * Florida * 33401(561) 640-3105 * fax (561) 640-3160**
#### Richard M. Bell, Respondent, v. Abel H. Gilbert, Appellant, Impleaded with Thomas L. James and Others, Defendants.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Woodward, Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor and Rich, JJ., concurred.
<PAGE>

                           OUTBOARD MARINE CORPORATION

                  EXHIBIT 11: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                          Three Months Ended March 31,
                                                                                         ------------------------------
(Dollars and Shares in Millions Except per Share Data)                                       2000              1999
                                                                                         --------------   -------------
<S>                                                                                      <C>              <C>
Basic Earnings per Share:
     Net loss of common shareholders                                                            ($31.5)            ($11.9)

     Weighted Average Number of Shares                                                            20.4               20.4
                                                                                         -------------    ---------------

     Basic Earnings (Loss) Per Share                                                            ($1.54)            ($0.58)
                                                                                         =============    ===============

Diluted Earnings Per Shares:
     Net Income (Loss)                                                                          ($31.5)            ($11.9)

     Weighted Average Number of Shares                                                            20.4               20.4
     Common Stock Equivalents (Stock Options)                                                     ----               ----
                                                                                         -------------    ---------------

     Average Shares Outstanding                                                                   20.4               20.4
                                                                                         -------------    ---------------

        Diluted Earnings (Loss) Per Share                                                       ($1.54)            ($0.58)
                                                                                         =============    ===============
</TABLE>
Exhibit 32




CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPALFINANCIAL OFFICER


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 Green Planet Bioengineering Co. Limited (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mr. Min Zhao, CEO and CFO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350 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.








Date: November 14, 2009
By:
/s/ Min ZhaoMin Zhao
Chief Executive Officer and ChiefFinancial Officer
(Principal Executive Officer and PrincipalFinancial Officer)
226 La. 278

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Athen S. TANNER.

No. 41848.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 8, 1954.

Blanchard & Blanchard, C. A. Blanchard, Donaldsonville, for defendant-appellant.

Fred S. LeBlanc, Atty. Gen., M. E. Cull-igan, -Asst. Atty. Gen., J. St. Clair Favrot, Dist. Atty., Scallan E. Walsh, Asst. Dist. Atty., Baton Rouge, for appellee.

FOURNET, Chief Justice.

The defendant, Athen S. Tanner, is appealing from his conviction and sentence for violátion of LSA-R.S. 14 :74, the charge having been made by affidavit that he “unlawfully and intentionally failed, refused and neglected to provide the *proper support*for his five minor children, namely; Iris, age 16 years, Darrell; age 14 years, Neville, age 12 years, Kay, age 10 years, and Glynn, age 8 years, they being in necessitous circumstances * ***• (Emphasis ours.) The trial court overruled the. defendant’s motion to quash on the ground that the affidavit was fatally defective in that it failed to charge a crime known to the laws of this state, and a Bill of Exception was reserved.

The contention of the State, in which contention it was maintained by the lower court, that the “use of the word ‘proper’ is meré surplusage and neither adds to nor detracts from the charge,” is untenable. The Louisiana Criminal Code, LSA-R.S. 14:74, defines criminal neglect of family as “the desertion or intentional non-suppórt: * * * By either parent of his minor child * * * who is in destitute or necessitous circumstances. * * * ” Thus it is seen that the gravamen of the offense is the *intentional non-support*of a child in destitute or necessitous circumstances. In the instant case, the information neithér tracked the language of the statute nor used “words unequivocally conveying the meaning of the statute,” LSA-R.S. 15:227; it therefore does not describe -a crime denounced by our laws, the language of which is strictly construed and cannot be extended further. LSA-R.S. 14:7; State v. Reed, 188 La. 402, 177 So. 252; State v. Whitlock, 193 La. 1044, 192 So. 697, and cases therein cited; State v. Truby, 211 La. 178, 29 So.2d 758; State v. Duncan, 219 La. 1030, 55 So.2d 234; State v. Jones, 220 La. 381, 56 So.2d 724.

In view of the above conclusion, a consideration of the other Bill of Exception is unnecessary.

For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are annulled and set aside, and the defendant is ordered released. .

PONDER, J., absent.
EX-4.47



 Exhibit 4.47 

SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT 
 Party A:
Beijing Giant Zhengtu Network Technology Co., Ltd. 
 Address: Room 6761, Building No.3, No.3 Xijing Road, Beijing, PRC 

Party B: Shanghai Giant Network Technology Co., Ltd. 

Address: 11FL, Building No.3, No.700 Yishan Road, Shanghai, PRC 

WHEREAS, 
 Party A and
Party B entered into the Online Game Distribution and License Agreement (the “Original Agreement”) on October 30, 2012 (Party B’s reference Number for the Original Agreement is HT0412120006), according to which, Party A
authorizes Party B to distribute the game software named the King of King Three V2.0. 
 Now, therefore, adhering to the principles of
equality and mutual benefit, and after friendly negotiations, the Parties reach the following agreement 
  

	1.	Both parties agree to terminate the Original Agreement on September 1, 2013. 

  

	2.	Rights and Obligations arose before the termination of the Original Agreement shall be governed by the Original Agreement 

  

	3.	This Supplementary Agreement shall supersede the Original Agreement with respect to the subject matter. In all the rest that is not provided by this Supplementary Agreement the Parties shall be governed by the Original
Agreement. 

  

	4.	This Supplementary Agreement shall become effective immediately upon sealed by the Parties .This Supplementary Agreement is prepared in four counterparts; either party shall have two counterparts with the same legal
effect. 

  

			
	 Party A: Beijing Giant Zhengtu

Network Technology Co., Ltd.
	  	 Party B: Shanghai Giant Network

Technology Co., Ltd.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 164 (Friday, August 22, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49673-49674]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19528]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval,

[[Page 49674]]

pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et 
seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 18, 2008.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (A. Linwood Gill, III, Vice 
President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:
    1. Bank of America Corporation, and NB Holdings Corporation, both 
of Charlotte, North Carolina; to acquire 100 percent of the voting 
securities of Bank of America Illinois, National Association, Chicago, 
Illinois (in organization), and Bank of America Michigan, National 
Association, Troy, Michigan (in organization).
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Steve Foley, Vice President) 
1000 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
    1. Piedmont Bancorp, Inc., Norcross, Georgia; to become a bank 
holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the outstanding shares of 
First Choice Community Bank 1874, Newnan, Georgia.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 19, 
2008.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E8-19528 Filed 8-21-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 24.3

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT, that the undersigned, Patrick J. Lavelle,
constitutes and appoints Yehoram Uziel and Robert E. Kassel, or either of them,
his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, each with full power of
substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, in
any and all capacities, to sign the Form 10-KSB, Annual Report of Soligen
Technologies, Inc., a Wyoming Corporation, for the fiscal year ended March 31,
1998, and any amendments or supplements thereto, and to file this Power of
Attorney and the Form 10-KSB, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in
connection therewith with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
Superintendent of the British Columbia Securities Commission, the American Stock
Exchange and the Vancouver Stock Exchange, granting unto each of said
attorneys-in-fact and agents full power and authority to do and perform each and
every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the
premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in
person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that each of said attorneys-fact and
agents, or his substitutes, may do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

           Dated this       19th       day of June 1998
                       ---------------


Signature




/s/ Patrick J. Lavelle
--------------------------------
Patrick J. Lavelle, Director
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC form
10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                              51
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      555
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        496
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,675
<PP&E>                                           3,572
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,904
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,199
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,964
<BONDS>                                          1,903
<COMMON>                                           696
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              195
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      (1,793)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,199
<SALES>                                          1,130
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,130
<CGS>                                              871
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      871
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    (1)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  33 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     77
<INCOME-TAX>                                        27
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 44
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        44
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .81<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .77<F2>
<FN>
<F1> Represents basic earnings per share as defined in FASB Statement No. 128
<F2> Represents diluted earnings per share as defined in FASB Statement No. 128.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### In re McINTOSH. FOWLER et al. v. SEYMOUR.

No. 8773.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

March 19, 1938.

Franklin P. Bull and Homer C. Compton, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellants.

Thomas S. Tobin and Raphael Dechter, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Before WILBUR, GARRECHT, and HANEY, Circuit Judges.

HANEY, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is from an order entered by the District Court sitting in a bankruptcy proceeding, on December 20, 1937.

From the record it appears that on December 10, 1931, a creditor’s involuntary petition in bankruptcy was filed and thereon and thereafter, and on February 24, 1933, and with the written consent of the bankrupt, an order was entered by the District Court adjudicating Frazier McIntosh to be a bankrupt.

On March 9, 1933, a trustee of the bankrupt’s estate was elected. ‘

On April 13, 1937, appellants, as interveners, filed with the referee a petition to recover real and personal property and for an accounting for rents and profits, which petition was denied by the referee on June 1, 1937. Appellants’ petition for review thereof was denied by the District Court in a written opinion October 29, 1937, and a formal order dismissing appellants’ petition, and confirming the order of the referee was entered by the court November 16,1937.

Thereafter, and on November 26, 1937, appellants filed a petition for rehearing of their petition for review, which the court denied on December 20, 1937.

On January 15, 1938, the court, at appellants’ request, by formal order extended the time for appeal until February 15, 1938, saying therein “this is a final extension.”

On January 18, 1938, appellants filed with the clerk of the District Court a petition for appeal from the above-described order of December 20, 1937, and filed therewith an “Assignment of Errors,” setting forth fifteen reasons whereby they contended that said order was erroneous. The appeal was allowed by the District Court on January 18, 1938.

Upon the above record appellee moves to dismiss the appeal herein and appellants move for an order “that the motion of appellee be denied and dismissed.”

The order of November 16, 1937 refusing to set aside and actually confirming the referee’s order, stands without appeal therefrom, and the time within which an appeal might be taken therefrom expired December 17, 1937, section 24c of the Bankruptcy Act, as amended, 11 U.S.C.A. § 47(c).

We are without power to authorize or permit a change in the record so as to consider an appeal, which in fact was not taken.

The order of December 20, 1937, is not an appealable order. See Wayne United Gas Co. v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., 300 U.S. 131, 137, 57 S.Ct. 382, 385, 81 L.Ed. 557, and cases cited.

*628Appellants’ motion must be denied. Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal must be granted.

It is so ordered.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 495

To amend the Clean Air Act to delay implementation of enhanced motor

vehicle inspection and maintenance programs.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 11, 1995

Mr. UPTON (for himself, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr. CAMP, Mr. CHRYSLER, and Mr.

KNOLLENBERG) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To amend the Clean Air Act to delay implementation of

enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance programs.

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

3 SECTION 1. IMPLEMENTATION OF ENHANCED VEHICLE IN4 SPECTION PROGRAMS.

5 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a State

6 shall not be required to implement an enhanced vehicle

7 inspection and maintenance program under section

8 182(c)(3) (42 U.S.C. 7511a(c)(3)) or section 184 (42
2

•HR 495 IH

1 U.S.C. 7511c) of the Clean Air Act before the date 2 years

2 after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ