alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-4.15





 Exhibit 4.15 

Execution Version 
 WRITTEN
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO REGISTRATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT 
 April 3, 2020 

Reference is hereby made to the Registration Rights Agreement dated as of April 3, 2020, by and between HUYA Inc., an exempted company incorporated with
limited liability under the laws of the Cayman Islands (the “Company”) and JOYY Inc., an exempted company incorporated with limited liability under the laws of the Cayman Islands (the “JOYY”), pursuant to which the
Company has agreed to grant to JOYY certain registration rights with respect to Registrable Securities (the “Registration Rights Agreement”). Capitalized terms used but otherwise undefined herein shall have the same meaning ascribed
to them in the Registration Rights Agreement. 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.6 of the Registration Rights Agreement, registration rights of
Registrable Securities may be assigned by JOYY to a third party transferee of all or any of the Subject Shares in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth thereunder. 

WHEREAS, pursuant to the share transfer agreement dated as of April 3, 2020 entered into by and between JOYY and Linen Investment Limited, an exempted
company incorporated with limited liability under the Laws of the British Virgin Islands (“Linen Investment”), JOYY has transferred to Linen Investment and Linen Investment has received from JOYY 16,523,819 Class B ordinary
shares of the Company. 
 NOW THEREFORE, Linen Investment hereby agree as follows: 

1. Linen Investment hereby acknowledges, agrees and confirms that, by executing this letter, it shall be deemed to be a party to the
Registration Rights Agreement as of the date hereof and shall have all of the rights and obligations of JOYY in proportion to its holding of the Registrable Securities as if it had executed the Registration Rights Agreement. Linen Investment hereby
agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions of the Registration Rights Agreement. 
 2. Any notice required or permitted by the
Registration Rights Agreement shall be given to Linen Investment at the address listed below: 
 Tencent Binhai Towers 

No.33 Haitian 2nd Road, Nanshan District, 

Shenzhen, P. R. China 518054 

Attention: ****** 
 Email: ******

 With a copy to: 

Latham & Watkins LLP 
 18th Floor, One Exchange Square, 
 8 Connaught Place, Central, 

Hong Kong 
 Attention: ****** 

Email: ****** 












 3. This letter is effective as of the date hereof and is binding on all successors of Linen
Investment. 
 4. This letter shall be governed by and construed under the Laws of the State of New York. 

[Signature Page Follows] 

  
 2 













 ACKNOWLEDGED, ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO 

as of the date first written above: 
  

			
	Linen Investment Limited
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Huateng Ma

		 	Name: Huateng Ma
		 	Title:   Authorized Signatory
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dynacq Healthcare, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
November 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Philip S. Chan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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, as amended; and



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



August 30, 2004



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/    PHILIP S. CHAN  
|Philip S. Chan         
|Chief Financial Officer



This certification is made solely
pursuant to the requirement of Section 1350 of 18 U.S.C., and is not for any other purpose.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 204 (Friday, October 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 65381]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26437]


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

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES


Hearings of the Judicial Conference Committees on Bankruptcy, 
Criminal Rules

AGENCY: Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules and Advisory Committee 
on Criminal Rules, Judicial Conference of the United States.

ACTION: Notice of proposed amendments and open hearings.

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

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules and the Advisory 
Committee on Criminal Rules have proposed amendments to the following 
rules and forms:

Bankruptcy Rules: 3001, 7054, and 7056, and Official Forms 10, 25A, and 
new Forms 10 (Attachment A), 10 (Supplement 1), and 10 (Supplement 2).
Criminal Rules 5, 58, and new Rule 37.

    The text of the proposed rules amendments and new rules and 
accompanying Committee Notes can be found at the United States Federal 
Courts' Home Page at http://www.uscourts.gov/rules.

Notice of Proposed Amendments and Open Hearings

    The Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and 
Procedure submits these proposed rules amendments and new rules for 
public comment. All comments and suggestions with respect to them must 
be placed in the hands of the Secretary as soon as convenient and, in 
any event, not later than February 16, 2011. All written comments on 
the proposed rule amendments can be sent by one of the following three 
ways: by electronic mail at http://www.uscourts.gov/rules; by overnight 
mail to Peter G. McCabe, Secretary, Committee on Rules of Practice and 
Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States, Thurgood 
Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, Washington, DC 20544; or by 
facsimile to Peter G. McCabe at (202) 502-1766. In accordance with 
established procedures all comments submitted on the proposed 
amendments are available to public inspection.
    Public hearings are scheduled to be held on the amendments to:
    <bullet> Bankruptcy Rules in San Francisco, CA, on January 7, 2011, 
and in Washington, DC, on February 4, 2011;
    <bullet> Criminal Rules in San Francisco, CA, on January 5, 2011, 
and in Atlanta, GA, on January 25, 2011.

Notice of Proposed Amendments and Open Hearings

    Those wishing to testify should contact the Committee Secretary at 
the above address in writing at least 30 days before the hearing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee 
Support Office, Administrative Office of the United State Courts, 
Washington, DC 20544, Telephone (202) 502-1820.

    Dated: October 7, 2010.
John K. Rabiej,
Chief Rules Committee Support Office.
[FR Doc. 2010-26437 Filed 10-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-55-M
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1071 

Recognizing that allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues the 

franchise and diminishes the voting power of United States citizens. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 20, 2018 

Mr. MCCARTHY submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing that allowing illegal immigrants the right to 

vote devalues the franchise and diminishes the voting 

power of United States citizens. 

Whereas voting is fundamental to a functioning democracy; 

Whereas the Constitution prohibits discrimination in voting 

based on race, sex, poll taxes, and age; 

Whereas it is of paramount importance that the United 

States maintains the legitimacy of its elections and protects them from interference, including interference from 

foreign threats and illegal voting; 

Whereas the city of San Francisco, California, is allowing 

non-citizens, including illegal immigrants, to register to 

vote in school board elections; and 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1071 IH 

Whereas Federal law prohibits non-citizens from voting in 

elections for Federal office: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives recog2 nizes that allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote de3 values the franchise and diminishes the voting power of 

4 United States citizens. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
# Sitemap

## June 26, 2020

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2020
- 06
- June 26, 2020

            - NASA Awards Contract for Earth Observing Satellite Instrument
            - Both Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo Experiencing High Numbers of Agricultural Fires
            - Season 4, Episode 12: The Search for Technosignatures
            - In Case You Missed It: A Weekly Summary of Top Content from NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center
            - NASA-NOAA’s Suomi NPP Satellite Analyzes Saharan Dust Aerosol Blanket
            - Technology vs. Space
            - Hubble Captures Galaxy on Edge
            - Sols 2805-2809: Pit Stop for Curiosity
The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

December 16, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00857

- CR

Andrew MENDOZA

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013CR3452A Honor able Lorina I. Rummel, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The trial court = s certification in this appeal states that A this criminal case is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal. @ The clerk = s record contains a written plea bargain, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant; therefore, the trial court = s certification accurately reflects that the cr iminal case is a plea

- bargain case. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2(a)(2). Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, A The appeal must be dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules. @ T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2(d). It is therefore ORDERED that this appeal will be dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure unless appellant causes an amended trial court certification to be fi led within thirty (30) days from the date of this order showing appellant has the right of appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2(d); 37.1; see also Daniels v. State

, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.

C San Antonio 2003, order). All other appellate deadlines are SUSPEND ED pending our resolution of the certification issue.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 16th day of December, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CURTIS TYRONE PURVIS, JR.

April 28, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
# Sitemap

## January 02, 2020

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2020
- 01
- January 02, 2020

            - NASA Prepares Artemis I SLS Rocket Stage for Move to Pegasus Barge
            - 2020 FIRST Robotics Kickoff Event Returns to Rocket City Jan. 4
            - Media Invited to Preview Snow-Chasing Field Campaign
            - Ferocious Fires in Australia Intensify
            - Glittering Lights of Earth As Seen From the Space Station
            - Sol 2634: Happy New Year From Mars!
# Sitemap

## May 05, 1999

- Home
- Sitemap
- 1999
- 05
- May 05, 1999

            - Altus
            - Altus
            - Altus
Exhibit 99.2

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




        In connection with the Quarterly Report of Berkeley  Technology  Limited
on Form 10-Q for the  period  ended  September  30,  2003 as filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Ian K. Whitehead, as Chief
Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted by ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

        (1)  The   accompanying   Quarterly   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
registrant.



Date:  November 14, 2003                         By:    /s/  Ian K. Whitehead

                                                        Ian K. Whitehead
                                                        Chief Financial Officer
#### MELVIN MORSE v. ATLANTIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.

February 27, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CARL CULLY.

February 6, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

JON ANTHONY SCHWEDER, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 20-0228 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Navajo County

No. S0900CR20090633

The Honorable Robert J. Higgins, Judge

AFFIRMED

APPEARANCES

Navajo County Attorney’s Office, Holbrook

By Michael R. Shumway

Counsel for Respondent

Jon Anthony Schweder, Florence

Petitioner

FILED 6-4-2020
STATE v. SCHWEDER

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.

B R O W N, Judge:

¶1 Petitioner Jon Anthony Schweder seeks review of the superior 

court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant 

to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner’s third 

successive petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to 

show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition 

for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) 

(petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, the petition for 

review, and State’s response. We find that petitioner has not established an 

abuse of discretion. 

¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and deny relief.
585 A.2d 371

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. EDDIE JAMES PARKER.

September 4, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 13

- 00025

- CV

IN RE James SCOTT

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 13, 2013

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On January 14, 2013, Relator James Scott filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The

court has considered Scott’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that Scott is not

entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 05

- 838

- A, styled James Robert Scott v. State of Texas , from the 216th

Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas, the Honorable N. Keith Williams presiding

.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7660

EDDIE PATRICK SIZEMORE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

K. L. OSBORNE, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-97-82-R)

Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 22, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eddie Patrick Sizemore, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’ order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. Sizemore v. Osborne, No. CA-97-82-R (W. D.

Va. October 22, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6512

ORLANDO DAVID ALMOND,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DAVE ROBINSON, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.

(CA-01-314)

Submitted: May 30, 2002 Decided: June 10, 2002

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Orlando David Almond, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the

magistrate judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c)(1) (West

1993 & Supp. 2001).

2

PER CURIAM:

Orlando David Almond seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s

order* denying his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2001). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction

because Almond’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties in a civil action, in which the United States is not

a party, are accorded thirty days after the entry of the magistrate

judge’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App.

P. 4(a)(1), unless the magistrate judge 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. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257,

264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229

(1960)).

The magistrate judge’s order was entered on the docket on

January 22, 2002. Almond’s notice of appeal was filed on March 25,

2002. Because Almond failed to file a timely notice of appeal or

to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny

Almond’s motion for preparation of a transcript at government

expense and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
585 A.2d 364

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. BENJAMIN QUIRINDONGO.

September 4, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
      Here's how you know **The .gov means it’s official.**
            
            Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
 **The site is secure.**
            
            The **https://** ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.


U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
 Menu


close HomeAbout
    About the MSPB	
			Contacts & Locations
			Equal Employment Opportunity
			Information Quality Standards
			No FEAR Act
			Open.Gov
			Organization
			Plans, Budget & Performance
			Privacy Program
           Merit System Principles
	Prohibited Personnel Practices
	 Site Index and SearchAppeals
    Appeal Process
						Appellant Q&A
    Electronic Filing
    Forms
    Hearing Sites
    Policy & Resources
    Regulations
    Whistleblower Q&A 
	Electronic Filing  
	Mediation Appeals ProgramDecisions
    Case Reports
Nonprecedential Decisions
		Precedential DecisionsStudies & Publications
       About & Contact Studies
		Latest Publications
		Newsletters
		Reports
          Research Briefs
		Search StudiesSurveys of Federal Employees Public & Information Services
    Accessibility
		   Contracting & Procurement
			  Federal Register Notices
		      FOIA Program
				 e-FOIA Reading Room
        Submit a FOIA Request
           FOIA Reports 
			Information Collections
			Jobs & Internships
	Press Releases & News
	Privacy Program
				Regulations
			    Technical Support Search small
Search




Home
	  Case Reports           
Nonprecedential Decisions
      	  Precedential Decisions
     
    Search & Site Index Precedential Decisions
	 Notice to Parties with a Pending Petition for Review or Case Before the Full Board Regarding Updating Contact Information (Updated: 1/30/24)
This page includes decisions issued within last 5 years. Older decisions may be found using Advanced Search.

Advanced Search - Precedential Decisions
	
	New FAQ on the Lack of Quorum Period and Restoration of the Full Board (2/27/2023)Filter items by any term that exists in the table (e.g. name of appellant, agency, date, or decision number) using the exact phrase.   Sort items in the table  by clicking the header of any column. 

Issued Date
					Decision #
				firstname
				lastname
	     			Appellant
						AgencyIssued Date
					Decision #
				firstname
				lastname
	     			Appellant
						Agency


Return to top


About MSPB
			  Accessibility
           Budget and Performance
          FOIA
          Info Quality Standards
          No FEAR Act
    
          Office of the Inspector General
          Privacy Program   
           Technical Support       USA.gov
		OSC.gov
				 Vote.gov


U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
 Agency Contact Center (202) 653-7200
          mspb@mspb.gov