alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exh10-78.htm










Exhibit 10.78




 



Stock Purchase Agreement







Party A: Weidong Chai (the “Lender”)


Party B: China Direct Investments, Inc.







Whereas, Party A and Party B entered a $300,000 secured promissory note on August 21, 2012 (“Promissory Note”), where Party B unconditionally promised to pay to the order of the Lender (Chinese Citizen, Weidong Chai) and or his assigns at the location designated by the Lender in writing, in lawful money of the United States of America the principal sum of $300,000 (the “Principal Amount”), together with interest on the unpaid principal amount outstanding at a rate of 12.00% per annum.







Whereas, after friendly discussion, both parties agree to pay the principal amount in the common stock of CD International Enterprises, Inc. (OTC: CDII), at the terms and regulations set as below:








	
1.

	
Stock Purchase Price: The stock purchase price of this agreement is $0.05 per share













	
2.

	
Stock Issuance: Subject to the terms and conditions hereof, the Principal Amount shall be converted into 6,000,000 (six million) shares of CDII’s common stock (“shares”) and issue to Party B before May 28, 2015, accrued interest under the Promissory Note may be repaid by the consulting services provide by Party B. Lender has the right to transfer these shares to its assigned entity and/or individual.













	
3.

	
Default: Upon an Event of Default, the Lender may, at the Lender’s option, (i) without notice or demand of any kind to Borrowers or any other person, declare the entire Principal Amount and all accrued and unpaid interest hereunder immediately due and payable, (ii) exercise any and all rights, power and remedies available to it under the Security Agreement, and (ii) exercise any and all rights, power and remedies available to it at law or in equity.







 



	
4.

	
Choice of Laws.  The parties hereto specify that this Agreement shall be made and interpreted under the laws of the State of Florida (other than its laws regarding conflicts of laws).







 



	
5.

	
Severability.  If any provision of this Agreement shall, to any extent, be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable, in whole or in part, the validity, legality, and enforceability of the remaining part of such provision, and the validity, legality and enforceability of the other provisions hereof, shall not be affected thereby.







 



	
6.

	
Multiple Counterparts.  This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original and all of which shall constitute one agreement.







 


IN WITNESS WHEROF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals to this Agreement effective as of the day and year signed below.












(Signature pages below)






  





  











  














	
 


Party A:  Weidong Chai


 


Signature: /s/ Weidong Chai


 


Date: May 28, 2015


 


	
 


 


Party B: China Direct Investments, Inc


 


By: /s/ James Yuejian Wang


 


Name: James Yuejian Wang


 


Title: President












Date: May 28, 2015
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1951 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1951

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
             Labor, IT Modernization for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
        referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
             Labor, IT Modernization for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 
              IT MODERNIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Labor, IT 
Modernization for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $2,826,900.
                                 <all>
```
#### Israel Hyman, Respondent, *v.*Joseph F. Cohen, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department, •

December 15, 1924.

Evidence — hearsay — witness testified of his own knowledge to facts contained in memorandum of information obtained from others — motion to strike out testimony should have been granted.

Motion by the defendant to strike out the testimony of the plaintiff on the ground that it was hearsay should have been granted since it appears that the plaintiff testified, as of his own knowledge, to facts contained in a memorandum which contained information that he had obtained from other persons, and that the paper was not used to refresh his recollection nor was it a contemporaneous record kept by him.

*153Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of The Bronx, Second District, in favor of plaintiff for $324.75 after a trial by a judge without a jury.

*Shaine & Weinrib [Edward C. Weinrib*of counsel], for the appellant.

*Isaac Hyman,*for the respondent.

Per Curiam:

In an action for commissions on the sale of defendant’s goods, plaintiff testified to the amounts of sales and the names of customers upon whose orders he claimed commission. On cross-examination it appeared that he kept no books or other contemporaneous records of sales made on defendant’s behalf, but that he had a list of his customers. When difficulties arose between his employer and himself he went to the various customers and asked for the amount of goods bought and paid for. The figures thus obtained were the ones given in plaintiff’s direct examination as of his own knowledge. No objection was made to his use of the paper from which he read, but a motion was made to strike out all this testimony on the ground that it was hearsay. Plaintiff had no independent recollection of the facts, the paper was not used to refresh his recollection, nor was it a contemporaneous record kept by him. The motion should have been granted.

The judgment is reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Bijur, Wagner and Levy, JJ.
<PAGE>


                                                                   Exhibit 10.39

Table of Special Stock Options
------------------------------

During 2003 and 2004, the Registrant granted to individuals that are not
officers or directors of the Registrant Special Stock Options pursuant to the
form attached hereto as Exhibit 10.33 for the following 460,000 nonqualified
stock options in three individual compensation arrangements that have not been
approved by security holders:

<TABLE>

------------------ ---------------- ---------------- --------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------
                                                     Exercise
                   Type of                           Price per       Vesting Start                     Total
Shares Granted*    Security         Grant Date       Share           date             Vested Schedule  Exercise Price
------------------ ---------------- ---------------- --------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------
<C>                <C>              <C>              <C>             <C>              <C>              <C>
75,000             NSO              8/11/03          $0.46           -                Immediate        $37,500
------------------ ---------------- ---------------- --------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------
50,000             NSO              11/10/03         $0.80           -                Immediate        $40,000
------------------ ---------------- ---------------- --------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------
155,000            NSO              4/30/03          $0.30           3/1/03           1/24 of Shares   $46,500
                                                                                      Granted per
                                                                                      Month
------------------ ---------------- ---------------- --------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------
150,000            NSO              4/12/04          $2.95           4/1/04           1/24 of Shares   $442,500
                                                                                      Granted per
                                                                                      Month
------------------ ---------------- ---------------- --------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------
30,000             NSO              4/12/04          $2.95           4/1/04           1/24 of Shares   $88,500
                                                                                      Granted per
                                                                                      Month

------------------ ---------------- ---------------- --------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------
</TABLE>


*Takes into account all previous stock splits.
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**
 
 In
        connection with the Quarterly Report of Composite Technology Corporation
        (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2008, as filed with
        the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
        Benton H. Wilcoxon, 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 result of operations of the
                  Company.
 
 
 /s/
        Benton H Wilcoxon
 Benton
        H
        Wilcoxon
 Chief
        Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7069

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROGER WAYNE JONES, III,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,

Senior District Judge. (1:14-cr-00037-JAB-1)

Submitted: November 25, 2015 Decided: January 8, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roger Wayne Jones, III, Appellant Pro Se. Kelley Patricia 

Kenned Gates, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Timothy 

Nicholas Matkins, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Roger Wayne Jones, III, appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 33 and his motion for correction of the 

presentence report. Finding no error, we affirm.

A jury convicted Jones of possession of a firearm by a 

convicted felon, and the district court sentenced him to 204 

months’ imprisonment. Jones appealed. While that appeal was 

pending, Jones filed a motion for a new trial based on an 

affidavit from a prosecution witness, Bryan Sabot. He also 

filed a motion to correct a perceived error in the presentence 

report. After we affirmed Jones’ conviction and sentence, 

United States v. Jones, 611 F. App’x 116 (4th Cir. 2015), the 

district court denied both motions. The present appeal 

followed.

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district 

court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jones a new trial. 

See United States v. Moore, 709 F.3d 287, 292 (4th Cir. 2013) 

(stating standard of review). Sabot’s testimony at trial was 

inconclusive on the critical issue of whether Jones possessed a 

firearm, and the affidavit does not contain sufficient new 

evidence to suggest that a new trial would probably result in 

Jones’ acquittal. See id. Similarly, to the extent Jones 

claims that the Government’s suppression of such evidence 
3

constituted a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 

(1963), he is not entitled to a new trial because the evidence 

is not material. See United States v. Horton, 693 F.3d 463, 

470-71 (4th Cir. 2012). Finally, because Jones did not file his 

motion to correct the presentence report before he was 

sentenced, the district court properly denied that motion as 

untimely. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(f)(1), (i)(1)(D).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### OREGON LUMBER EXPORT COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. TOHTO SHIPPING CO., Ltd., and Nara-saki Sangyo, K. K., Defendants.

Civ. No. 4097.

United States District Court, W. D. Washington.

July 1, 1970.

*352Floyd A. Frederickson, Portland, Or., Murray J. Anderson, Tacoma, Wash., for plaintiff.

John H. Bradbury, Seattle, Wash., for defendants.

ORDER QUASHING ATTACHMENT AND GARNISHMENT AND STAYING PROCEEDINGS

BOLDT, Chief Judge.

Defendants TOHTO SHIPPING, CO., LTD. and NARASAKI SANGYO, K. K. have moved to quash plaintiff’s attachment and garnishment of monies and to stay this ease pending the outcome of arbitration under the charter party contract on which plaintiff’s claims in this suit are based. Counsel for all parties have had ample opportunity to present memoranda of authorities, affidavits and oral argument, all of which the Court has fully considered.

Supplemental Rule B, F.R. Civ.P., permits attachment and garnishment of monies and other property of a defendant in admiralty and maritime claims brought in personam, but only “ * * * if the defendant shall not be found within the district.” A defendant corporation is “found” within the jurisdiction of a federal district court if in the recent past it has conducted substantial commercial activities in the district and probably will continue to do so in the future. Murphy v. A/S Sobral, 283 F.2d 392 (1st Cir. 1960); United States v. Cia. Naviera Continental S. A., 178 F.Supp. 561 (S.D.N.Y.1959); Murphy v. Arrow Steamship Co., 124 F.Supp. 199 (E.D.Pa.1954). Upon the showing of record in the present case, the Court finds that defendants at all material times were doing sufficient business within this district so as to be “found” therein within the meaning of Supplemental Rule B. Accordingly, attachment and garnishment were not authorized and should be quashed.

The basic question presented by defendants’ motion for a stay order pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 3 is whether parties to a charter party contract should be determined in arbitration proceedings or by the Court. Paragraph 23 of the charter party expressly provides: “Any dispute arising from this Charter shall be submitted to arbitration * * *” A party asserting a claim upon a contract containing an arbitration clause must comply therewith, as well as with all other material terms of the contract. Tepper Realty Company v. Mosaic Tile Company, 259 F.Supp. 688 (S.D.N.Y. 1966); Kulukundis Shipping Co. S/A v. Amtorg Trading Corp., 126 F.2d 978 (2nd Cir. 1942). On the present record, neither plaintiff nor either defendant has disclaimed being a party to the charter party in question or has denied validity of the arbitration clause. In these circumstances, predetermination of parties to the contract by the Court is not required. Accordingly, this case should be stayed pending arbitration proceedings.
#### Citicorp Leasing, Inc., Respondent, v U.S. Auto Leasing, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Bahig F. Bishay, Appellant.

[870 NYS2d 337]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered September 10, 2007, which granted plaintiff creditor’s motion to confirm the Special Referee’s report computing damages and assessing attorneys’ fees against defendant-appellant guarantor, and awarded plaintiff $3,090,965.36, inclusive of interest, costs and disbursements, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Special Referee’s findings on the issues of the amount of defendant car leasing company’s outstanding indebtedness to plaintiff, and the amount defendants realized from dealings involving plaintiffs collateral that was not deposited into an escrow account as required by a preliminary injunction, have ample support in the record *(see Merchants Bank of N.Y. v Dajoy Diamonds,*5 AD3d 167 [2004]). Indeed, they are based on evidence that was largely uncontested. Appellant’s evidence of an alleged oral agreement to settle the underlying indebtedness was properly excluded as barred by the parol evidence rule *(see Peacock Holdings v Keefe & Keefe,*232 AD2d 331 [1996]; *Tilden of N.J. v Regency Leasing Sys.,*230 AD2d 784 [1996]), and also because it was not pleaded as an affirmative defense (CPLR 3018 [b]; *see Pallette Stone Corp. v Mangino,*217 AD2d 738 [1995]). Concerning the award of attorneys’ fees *(see Namer v 152-54-56 W. 15th St. Realty Corp.,*108 AD2d 705 [1985]), there is no support in the record for appellant’s claim that plaintiff and its attorneys engaged in a fraudulent “two-tiered billing system” involving a claim by plaintiff for attorneys’ fees for more than it actually paid. Counsel never represented that plaintiff had paid the entire amount that had been billed, provided invoices at the hearing reflecting that plaintiff had not yet paid the entire amount that had been billed, and promptly disclosed to the court the credit, or discount, that was given plaintiff some six weeks after the attorney’s testimony at the hearing. We have considered appellant’s other arguments, and his counterclaims, and find them without merit. Concur— Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ. *[See*2007 NY Slip Op 32553(U).]
## NO. 12-07-00472-CV IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTR ICT

TYLER, TEXA S

§ IN RE: AD OL

FO GIOV

AN NI TI ERI, RELATOR § ORIGINAL PROCEE DING § MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION On August 13, 2008, this court delivered an opinion conditionally g ranting the petition for writ of manda

mus filed by

Adolfo Giovanni Tier i as relator. That opinion order ed Respondent, the Ho no ra ble Caro le W. Cl ark, J ud g e of the 32 1s t Judi c ia l D istri c t Co ur t, S mith Co un ty , T e xas, to vacate her

September 25, 2007 or der de nying T ieri’s m o t i o n to dismi ss and for c osts under the UC CJ EAand

to i ssu e an o rd e r g ra

nti ngthe mot ion , d ism iss ingthe su it a ff e c tin g the pa

re nt- c hil d relationship, and relinquishing jur i s d i cti on under the UCCJ EA to the State of Ne w J erse y . On October 20, 2008, Respondent complied with this court’s opinion and orde r. All issues attendant to this origina l proce edinghaving been disposed of, this mandamus pr oc e e di ng has n owbe e n r e nd e re d mo ot; the re fo re , th e wr it n e e d n ot i ssu e . A c c or din g ly , th is or ig ina l pr oc e e din g is dism issed

. JA M ES T. WOR THEN Chief Justice Opinion delivere d October 22, 2008. P an el consi s t ed of

W ort hen, C. J. , G r i

f f i t h, J. , and H oyl e, J.

(PUBLISH)
**Exhibit 31.1**

Rule 13a-14(a)Certification of the Chief Executive Officer

I, James R. Clarkson,president and chief executive officer, certify that:

1.               I have reviewedthis annual report on Form 10-KSB of HCSB Financial Corporation;

2.               Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.               Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer asof, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.               The small businessissuer’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

a)  Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;

b)  Evaluated the effectivenessof the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

c)  Disclosed in this report anychange in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the smallbusiness issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.     The small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

a)  All significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the smallbusiness issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

b)  Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: March 15, 2007 | /s/ James R. Clarkson                   |
|----------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                 | James R. Clarkson                       |
|                 | President & Chief Executive Officer |

 

----