alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-33 (c)
(Logo)  COLONIAL
        SAVINGS


Management's Assertion Concerning Compliance with Regulation AB Criteria




March 1, 2007


Colonial Savings, F.A. (Asserting Party) is responsible for assessing compliance
as of and for the period from and including January 1, 2006 through December 31,
2006 (Reporting Period) with the minimum servicing criteria set forth in Title
17, Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the CFR) except for
the servicing criteria set forth in Section 229.1122(3)(i)(D) which is performed
as requested by the each investor in accordance with the individual transaction
agreements.

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the applicable servicing
criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the Asserting Party has
complied, in all material respects with the Applicable Servicing Criteria with
respect to the platform taken as a whole.

Payne Smith & Jones, P.C., an independent registered public accounting firm, has
issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the
Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December, 31, 2006 and for the Reporting
Period as set forth in this assertion.


/s/ Jim E. DuBose
Jim E. Dubose
President/Chief Executive Officer


/s/ Ben Dempsey
Ben Dempsey
Executive Vice President



2626A West Freeway, Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Office: 817-390-2000
www.colonialsavings.com
#### Gus Walker v State.

No. 24723.

March 29, 1950.

*Burks & McNeil,*Lubbock, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for the possession for sale of intoxicating liquor in a dry area, and the punishment assessed was 60 days in jail.

*466The charge given by the court is identical with that reported in Sessums v. State, 154 Texas Crim. Rep. 82, 225 S. W. 2d 419. It comes *from*the same court, with the same question raised.

Under the authority of the above case, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fernando Medina CANTU, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 72-2391

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 22, 1972.

Roger C. Rocha, Lazaro Garza-Gon-oora, Jr., Laredo, Tex., for defendant-appellant.

Anthony J. P. Farris, U. S. Atty., James R. Gough, Asst. U. S. Atty., Houston, Tex., Anthony C. Aguilar, Asst. U. S. Atty., Laredo, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.

*680Before BELL, DYER and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

In a three count indictment Cantu was charged with (1) conspiracy to possess and distribute marihuana; (2) possession with intent to distribute; and (3) distribution of nineteen pounds of marihuana, all in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1). He was found guilty of the conspiracy count and not guilty of the distribution count. Count 2 was withdrawn from the jury and dismissed. On appeal Cantu complains of the refusal of the district court to grant his motion for a bill of particulars. He further asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for conspiracy. We affirm.

Absent a showing of clear abuse of the trial court's sound discretion, or prejudice to substantial rights of the defendant, the denial of a bill of particulars is not ground for reversal. *See*United States v. Bearden, 5 Cir. 1970, 423 F.2d 805, cert. denied, 400 U.S. 836, 91 S.Ct. 73, 27 L.Ed.2d 68; Buie v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969, 420 F.2d 1207, cert. denied, 398 U.S. 932, 90 S.Ct. 1830, 26 L.Ed.2d 97. We find neither an abuse of discretion nor prejudice on the record before us.

The thrust of Cantu’s insufficiency of evidence argument is that, since the jury acquitted him of the substantive offense charged in Count 3, and the district court dismissed the substantive offense charged in Count 2, the evidence must have been insufficient to convict him of the conspiracy charged in Count 1. This, of course, does not follow. Where the offenses are separately charged in counts of a single indictment, each count must be tested independently against the evidence. If supported, it must stand. “Consistency in the verdict is not necessary.” Dunn v. United States, 1932, 284 U.S. 390, 393, 52 S.Ct. 189,190, 76 L.Ed. 356; *see*Tyler v. United States, 5 Cir. 1968, 397 F.2d 565, 570, cert. denied, 1969, 394 U.S. 917, 89 S.Ct. 1187, 22 L.Ed.2d 450; United States v. Carbone, 2 Cir. 1967, 378 F.2d 420, 421-423, cert. denied, 1967, 389 U.S. 914, 88 S.Ct. 242, 19 L.Ed.2d 262; Coil v. United States, 8 Cir. 1965, 343 F.2d 573, 576, cert. denied, 1965, 382 U.S. 821, 86 S.Ct. 48, 15 L.Ed.2d 67. *See also*United States v. Holmes, 7 Cir. 1971, 92 S.Ct. 1291, 31 L.Ed.2d 479; United States v. Cowley, 10 Cir. 1971, 452 F.2d 243, 247.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Each of Ashraf M. Dahod and Paul J. Milbury hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as President and Chief Executive Officer and Vice President, Operations and Chief Financial Officer,
respectively of Starent Networks, Corp. (the Company), that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.



|                  |  |     |  |                                                                       
|----------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 8, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ ASHRAF M. DAHOD                                                   
|                  |  |     |  | Ashraf M. Dahod President and Chief Executive Officer                 
|                  |  |    
|Date: May 8, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/PAUL J. MILBURY                                                    
|                  |  |     |  | Paul J. Milbury Vice President, Operations and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 12.4
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F/A of WNS (Holdings) Limited;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.
    
    The company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))
and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and
15(d)-15(f)) for the company 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 company, 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)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the company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; andd)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys
internal control over financial reporting; and
 4.
    
    The companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the
audit committee of the company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 companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the companys internal control over financial reporting.
  By:
    /s/ Alok MisraName:
    Alok MisraTitle:
    Group Chief Financial Officer
#### DURRETT HARDWARE & FURNITURE CO., Inc., v. HOWZE.

No. 5463.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

April 30, 1937.

Travis Oliver, Jr., of Monroe, for appellant.

Fink & Fink, of Monroe, for appellee.

HAMITER, Judge.

The petition in this cause alleges an indebtedness of defendant in the sum of $170 as the balance due on the purchase price of certain household furnishings. Plaintiff prays for judgment for that amount, plus interest and attorney’s fees, with recognition of an asserted vendor’s lien and chattel mortgage on the described property.

In bar of the claim, defendant tendered and urged a plea of prescription of five years. This was sustained by the trial court.

Subsequently, according to the court minutes, an order for a devolutive appeal was requested by plaintiff and was granted.

There is no executed appeal bond in the record. We find therein a duly prepared form for such bond, but it is not signed by either the plaintiff or a surety and consequently is no bond at all.

In the absence of an appeal bond, we are not permitted to review the proceedings and judgment of the trial court. There has been no appeal, and the cause is still under the jurisdiction of .that tribunal. Vacuum Oil Company v. Cockrell, 177 La. 623, 148 So. 898; R. P. Farnsworth & Co., Inc., v. Estrade, Cotton & Fricke (La.App.) 166 So. 160; Genco v. Union Berry & Truck Association (La.App.) 166 So. 888.

The fact that a motion to dismiss the appeal has not been filed in this court by defendant is of no moment. It is the duty of an appellate court to take notice of its lack of jurisdiction and to dismiss the appeal ex proprio motu. Gagneaux v. Desonier, 104 La. 648, 29 So, 282; Genco v. Union Berry & Truck Association, supra.

The appeal is dismissed at plaintiff’s cost.
November 1 , 2016



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

REYNA ISABEL TABORDA AND PHILLIP L. HURLE Y , Appellant s NO. 14

- 16

- 00545

- CV V.
SRINIVASACHARY V. TA MIRISA AND BARRY POW ELL , Appellee s

________________________________ Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on June 7, 2016. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellant s , Reyna Isabel Taborda and Phillip L. Hurley.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### First Finance Company, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hugh Ross and Margaret M. Ross, Individually and d/b/a Triangle Refrigeration Engineers, Defendants-Appellants.

Gen. No. 50,710.

First District, Fourth Division.

October 7, 1966.

Carl J. Greenberg, of Chicago, for appellants.

Masor, Baime & Gainer, of Chicago, for appellee.

MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE DRUCKER

delivered the opinion of the court.

Defendants appeal from the denial of their petition for a new trial under section 72 of the Civil Practice Act (Ill Rev Stats, 1963, c 110, § 72).

*403After a bench trial the defendants were found to have converted plaintiff’s property and judgment was entered in the amount of $12,000 plus costs. In addition, the court made a special finding that malice was the gist of the action against one of the defendants, Hugh Ross. In their petition defendants allege that the testimony of plaintiff’s sole witness was perjured.

The issues presented in this appeal are moot since the aforesaid judgment was reversed by this court [First Finance Co. v. Ross, 75 Ill App2d 403]. Therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

ENGLISH and McCORMICK, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 840 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 840

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 6, 1995

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
    at 215 South Evans Street in Greenville, North Carolina, as the 
   ``Walter B. Jones Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building and United States courthouse located at 215 
South Evans Street in Greenville, North
Carolina, shall be known and designated as the ``Walter B. Jones 
Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building and United States 
courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 
to the ``Walter B. Jones Federal Building and United States 
Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 5, 1995.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.

                              By Linda Nave,

                                                          Deputy Clerk.
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MARQUICE EVANS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 124 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 5th day of September, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
EX-4.40



 Exhibit 4.40 

SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT 
 This
Supplementary Agreement is made and entered into on April 20, 2013 (“Effective date”) in Shanghai, by and between: 
 Party
A: Shanghai Zhengju Information Technology Co., Ltd. 
 Address: 4FL, Building No.2, No.396 Guilin Road, Shanghai, PRC 

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

Address: Room 708, Building No.29, 396 Guilin Road, Shanghai, PRC 

WHEREAS, 
  

	1.	Party A and Party B entered into the Online Game Distribution and License Agreement (the “Original Agreement”) on March 27, 2012. According to the Original Agreement, Party A authorizes Party B to
distribute and operation World of Xianxia Game Software V 0.6 and subsequent versions (the “World of Xianxia”) and Party B shall pay the revenue share to Party A. 


 

	2.	Since Party B need to invest a huge amount of resource into the operation of World of Xianxia in the early stage, Party A and Party B reach the following supplementary agreement through friendly negotiations,


  

	1.	The Parties hereby agree to modify Article 5.1 to the Original Agreement as follows: 

 “5.1
Party B is entitled to use all the revenue collected between the commercial launch date of the game software and March 31, 2013 as the upfront costs which means Party A is not entitled to share with Party B concerning this part of revenue
according to the rate agreed. From April 1, 2013, Party B shall pay 65% of the book value collected from distribution of the game software on a monthly basis to Party A as license fee. Such license fee shall be paid in RMB.” 

 

	2.	In all the rest that is not provided by this Supplementary Agreement the Parties shall be governed by the Original Agreement. 

  

	3.	Both parties agree that this Supplementary Agreement supersedes the Original Agreement with respect to the subject matter. 

  

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


  

			
	 Party A: Shanghai Zhengju
 Information
Technology Co., Ltd.
	  	 Party B: Shanghai Giant Network

Technology Co., Ltd.
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

# AGENCY:

National Science Foundation. 

# ACTION:

Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation of 1978, Public Law 95-541. 

# SUMMARY:

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On July 14, 2008, the National Science Foundation published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     of a Waste Management permit application received. A permit was issued on August 15, 2008 to: Mark Flager, Voyages of Discovery, Permit No. 2009 WM-002.                 

Nadene G. Kennedy, 

Permit Officer.

[FR Doc. E8-19342 Filed 8-20-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
Exhibit 4.52


 


Purchase Framework Agreement 


 


	 	Contract No.:
	 	Signed Place: Jiangning District, Nanjing city


 


Seller: CSUN Trading (HongKong) Co., Limited


(hereinafter refered to
as:CSUN or Buyer)


 


Address: Flat/RM
19C LOCKHART CENTRE 301-307 LOCKHART ROAD WAN CHAI HK


Contact person:
Du Xiangxiang


 


Buyer: China Sunergy (Nanjing) Co., Ltd


(hereinafter referred to as _________or Seller)


Address: No.123
West Focheng Road, Jiangning, Nanjing 211100, China


Contact person:
Irene Yu


Tel:+86-25-5276 6666


 


In accordance with the principle of good faith
and mutual benefit, and according to the General Terms and Conditions For Purchase Contract of CSUN (Annex 1), both parties come
to this contract for purchase solar wafer ( hereinafter referred to as Goods),the contend of the contract are as follows:


 


		1.	Name, Type, Quantity, Unit Price and Total Price of the Products



 


Buyer will purchase 10,000,000 pieces of solar wafer in 2013
from seller , and seller shall provide the goods with the unit price showed on each purchase order.


 


		2.	Valid Period 



 


This contract will keep effectiveness for
one year, from the effective day to December 31, 2013.


 


		3.	Delivery, Package and Transportation Method



 


		3.1	Delivery method: within the valid period of the contract, Seller shall supplies the Goods according
to the Purchase Order provided by Buyer and deliver the Goods in accordance with the the Purchase Order.



 


		3.2	Delivery place: The place designated by Buyer’s
order.



 


		3.3	Package and Transportation Method: Article 2 of Annex
1 shall apply.



 


		4.	Payment terms



 


If the Seller confirms the quality,
specification, performance or quantity is in conformity with the stipulations of the Purchase Order in accordance with this Agreement
and the Purchase Order , the Buyer will pay the Goods within 30 days after receipt of the Commercial Invoice provided by Seller.


 




    	 



    	 



    

 


		5	Miscellaneous



 


5.1The Sales Contract shall be made
in two identical and same copies with each Party keeping one copy, and shall become effective upon being signed and sealed by Seller
and Buyer.


 


5.2Seller and Buyer shall send the
original copies of the contract to each other within three working days after signed the contract. The facsimile copy has the equal
effectiveness as the original copy.


 


5.3The annex documents are integral
parts of this contract, each page shall be stamped or signed by both parties. This contract has prior effectiveness, where there
is no agreed terms by both parties in the contract, the General Terms and Conditions For Purchase Contract of CSUN(Annex 1) shall
apply.


 


		5.4	The Agreement is written in both English and Chinese and both languages shall be equally authentic.
In case of any discrepancy between two languages, the English version shall prevail.



 


	Buyer: China Sunergy(Nanjing) Co.,Ltd	Seller: CSUN Trading (HongKong) Co.,Limited
	 	 
	Seal:	Seal:
	 	 
	/s/ China Sunergy(Nanjing) Co.,Ltd	/s/ CSUN Trading (HongKong)  Co.,Limited
	Co.,Limited	 
	Signature:	Signature:
	 	 
	Date:	Date:
#### Mason M. Swan, as Executor, etc., of Sarah Collins, Deceased, Respondent, v. Gilbert L. Gardner, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred, except Spring and Williams, JJ., who dissented.