alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Unassociated Document


 



Loan Agreement


 


(English Translation)


 


Date: 5/14/2009


 


Borrower:  Oceanic Well Profit, Inc.


 


Address: Oceanic Industry Park, Sha Gang Highway, Gang Kou Town, Zhongshan City, China


 


Lender: Cheung Kinwai


 


WHEREAS, the Borrower Oceanic Well Profit, Inc. hereby desires to borrow RMB 9,900,000 from the Lender.


 


WHEREAS, the Lender Cheung Kinwai hereby desires to lend RMB 9,900,000 to the Borrower.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and mutual promises contained herein, Borrower and Lender agree as follows:


 


1. The Borrower should send the Sender the confirmation in writing when the Borrower receives the fund from the Seller.


 


2. The loan period is from May 14th, 2009 to May 14th, 2014. The Borrower hereby promised to pay the principle amount of RMB 9,900,000 to the Lender on May 14th, 2014. The annual rate of interest equals to the benchmark interest rate issued by Bank of China, which is 7.844%. Borrower hereby promises to pay the interest in an amount of RMB 200,000 no later than the 14th day of each month during the loan period.


 


3. If the Borrower is willing to request an extension on the payment, the borrower should send the request including the terms on the extension in writing to the Lender, and the extension will not be effective until the Lender approves.


 


4. Borrower agrees to indemnify and hold Lender harmless against all claims, demands, causes of action, liabilities, losses, deficiencies and damages as well as costs and expenses (including reasonable attorneys, fees and court costs), interest and penalties related thereto, asserted against, or incurred by Purchaser, by reason of or resulting from any material breach, inaccuracy, incompleteness or non-fulfillment of the covenants, representations and warranties of Lender contained herein.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the day and year first above written.


 


Borrower:  /s/Oceanic Well Profit, Inc.


 


Lender:      /s/ Cheung Kinwai
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Keith SUN BEAR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-3153.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: March 11, 2013.

Filed: April 5, 2013.

Timothy Marshall Maher, Kathryn Nicole Rich, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Pierre, SD, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Edward Albright, Assistant, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Pierre, SD, for Defendant-Appellant.

Keith Sun Bear, Three Rivers, TX, pro se.

Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In 2002, Keith Sun Bear was convicted of sexual abuse of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 2243(a), and 2246(2). Four years later, Congress enacted the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), which requires sex offenders to periodically register with state government. Pursuant to a rule promulgated by the Attorney General on February 28, 2007, declaring the registration requirements of SORNA to apply retroactively to sex offenders convicted prior to the enactment date of SORNA, Sun Bear is required to register as a sex offender.

Sun Bear initially properly registered as a sex offender. However, when he failed to update his registration after moving from his residence in Rapid City, South Dakota, on March 18, 2012, he was indicted for failing to register as a sex offender in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). Sun *619Bear moved the district court1 to dismiss the indictment, arguing Congress had violated the non-delegation doctrine by enacting 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d), in which it authorized the Attorney General to specify whether the registration requirements of SORNA apply retroactively. *See Panama Ref. Co. v. Ryan,*298 U.S. 388, 421, 55 S.Ct. 241, 79 L.Ed. 446 (1935) (“The Congress manifestly is not permitted to abdicate or to transfer to others the essential legislative functions with which it is thus vested.”). The district court denied the motion, and Sun Bear pled guilty conditioned on his right to appeal the denial of the motion to dismiss.

On appeal, Sun Bear again asserts Congress violated the non-delegation doctrine by enacting 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d). While Sun Bear’s appeal was pending, we issued our decision in *United States v. Kuehl,*706 F.3d 917 (8th Cir.2013), in which we held the congressional grant of authority to the Attorney General in 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d) to be constitutionally valid because Congress had set forth an intelligible principle to guide in the exercise of the granted authority. *Id.*at 920; *see also Mistretta v. United States,*488 U.S. 361, 372, 109 S.Ct. 647, 102 L.Ed.2d 714 (1989) (Congress may delegate legislative authority to another body, provided Congress lays down by legislative act an intelligible principle for the exercise of the granted authority to which the authorized body must conform). Under our holding in *Kuehl,*Sun Bear’s argument that Congress improperly delegated its legislative authority to the Attorney General, must fail.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Roberto A. Lange, United States District Court for the District of South Dakota.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Raul DIAZ-MORENO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-40020

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 17, 2012.

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Molly Estelle Odom, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DAVIS, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Raul Diaz-Moreno has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Diaz-Moreno has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

## **SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

## ** **

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Great Lakes Dredge & DockCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30,2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Deborah A. Wensel, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Deborah A. Wensel   |                 |
|-------------------------|----------------------|
| Deborah A. Wensel       |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| Date:                   | August 10, 2005 |
|                         |                      |  |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to Great Lakes Dredge & DockCorporation and will be retained by Great Lakes Dredge & DockCorporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

1

----
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 10, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00330

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L.G.D. AND R.O.B , Children,

From the 288th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021

- PA

- 00769 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On May 13, 2022, th e trial court signed a final judgment terminating the parental rights of appellants J.B. and N.D. Because this is an accelerated appeal, the notice of appeal was due to

be filed on June 2, 2022. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 4.1(a), 26.1 (b), 28.4 ; T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN

. §

263.405 (a) . A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due to be file d on June 17 , 2022. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.3

. J.B. timely filed a notice of appeal , but to date, N.D. has not filed a notice of appeal. N.D., however, filed a motion for extension of time to file her brief on July 6, 2022, and she filed a brief on Augus t 4, 2022. In her statement of the case in her brief, N.D. states that she filed a notice of appeal, but the record cite given is to J.B.’s notice of appeal.

T he timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional, and absent a timely filed notice of appeal or a timely filed request for an extension of time , we generally must dismiss the appeal.

See id. R. P. 25.1(b) ; In re K.M.Z. , 178 S.W.3d 432, 433 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2005, no pet.)

. It is therefore ORDERED that N.D. file, within seven days from the date of this order, a

response explaining how this court has jurisdiction over her appeal. If N.D. fails to respond within the time provided, th is appeal will be dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c).

It is so ORDE RED August 10

, 202 2

.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

______ ____________________

MICHA EL A. CRUZ

, CLERK OF COURT
EXHIBIT 11


                       SYNAPTIC PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION

                    Computation of Primary Net Loss Per Share


                                 Three Months               Six Months
                                Ended June 30,             Ended June 30,
                              1997         1996          1997         1996
                           ----------   ----------    ----------   ----------
Weighted average common
  shares outstanding        7,646,085    7,575,452     7,640,454    7,534,736
                           ==========   ==========    ==========   ==========

Net loss                  ($  959,000) ($1,056,000)  ($2,095,000) ($2,159,000)
                           ==========   ==========    ==========   ==========

Net loss per share             $(0.13)      ($0.14)       $(0.27)      ($0.29)
                                 ====         ====          ====        =====
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 11


                       SYNAPTIC PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION

                 Computation of Fully Diluted Net Loss Per Share


                                Three Months                  Six Months
                               Ended June 30,                Ended June 30,
                                1997         1996          1997         1996
                             ----------   ----------    ----------   ----------

Weighted average common
  shares outstanding          7,646,085    7,575,452     7,640,454    7,534,736

Shares underlying common
  stock options outstanding
  considered exercised,
  based on the treasury
  stock method                  273,789      310,066       285,681      308,414

Shares underlying 1993
  Warrants outstanding
  considered exercised,
  based on the treasury
  stock method                   39,866       52,024        41,486       55,145
                             ----------   ----------    ----------   ----------
Shares used in computation
  of net loss per share       7,959,740    7,937,542     7,967,621    7,898,295
                             ==========   ==========    ==========   ==========

Net loss                    ($  959,000) ($1,056,000)  ($2,095,000) ($2,159,000)
                             ==========   ==========    ==========   ==========

Net loss per share              ($0.12)       ($0.13)       ($0.26)      ($0.27)
                                 =====         =====         =====        =====
<PAGE>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 210 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                           May 1, 2003.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 1298) to provide assistance to foreign countries to combat HIV/AIDS, 
tuberculosis, and malaria, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall 
not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on International Relations. After general 
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It 
shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on International Relations now printed in the bill. 
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as 
read. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
accompanying this resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, 
shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall 
not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House 
with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate 
vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Henry Whitehead, III, Appellant.

[852 NYS2d 879]

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [1]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the bargained-for sentence is not rendered unduly harsh or severe by the fact that two of the codefendants received lesser sentences than defendant (see *People v Jones,*4 AD3d 796, 797 [2004], *lv denied 2*NY3d 801 [2004]; *see generally People v Fernandez,*30 AD3d 626, 627 [2006]), and the sentence otherwise is not unduly harsh or severe. Present-Smith, J.P., Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Green, JJ.
**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**

The undersigned, Robert A. Rich, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
| (1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of American Uranium Corporation for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2007 (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 American Uranium Corporation                                                                      |

Dated:  July 23, 2007

 

/s/ Robert A. Rich

 

Robert A. Rich

President, Secretary, Treasurer and sole Director

(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)

 

 

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 American Uranium Corporation and will be retained by American Uranium Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
      (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 registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiary, 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 registrant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; and(d)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting;
  (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 registrants ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial information; and(b)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
  /s/ Michael C. KeefeMichael C. KeefeExecutive Vice President and Acting Chief FinancialOfficer (Principal Financial Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 973 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 973

    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore and make 
 permanent the exclusion from gross income for amounts received under 
qualified group legal services plans and to increase the maximum amount 
                           of the exclusion.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 27, 2003

 Mr. Camp (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Rogers of Michigan, Mr. Matsui, 
   Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, Mr. Rangel, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. 
     Delahunt, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. McNulty, and Mr. Ehlers) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore and make 
 permanent the exclusion from gross income for amounts received under 
qualified group legal services plans and to increase the maximum amount 
                           of the exclusion.

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

SECTION 1. EXCLUSION FOR AMOUNTS RECEIVED UNDER QUALIFIED GROUP LEGAL 
              SERVICES PLANS RESTORED AND MADE PERMANENT.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (e) of section 120 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
    ``(e) Application of Section.--This section and section 501(c)(20) 
shall apply to taxable years beginning.--
            ``(1) after December 31, 1976, and before July 1, 1992, and
            ``(2) after December 31, 2003.''
    (b) Increase in Maximum Exclusion.--The last sentence of section 
120(a) of such Code is amended by striking ``$70'' and inserting 
``$150''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2003.
                                 <all>
```
No. 988.

#### United States *v.*Bruno.

May 13, 1946.

*Solicitor General McGrath*for the United States.

*George R. Sommer*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted.