alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10-2.htm


Exhibit 10.2


 









Reimbursement Agreement – Tianwei









As of November 30, 2011


 







Hoku Corporation


1288 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 220


Honolulu, Hawaii 96814


Attention: Chief Executive Officer







Re:           Financing Costs Reimbursement







Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


Reference is made to the Credit Agreement (the “Credit Agreement”) dated as of the date hereof between Hoku Corporation, as borrower (“Hoku”) and Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, Ltd., New York Branch, as lender (the “Lender”).  Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Credit Agreement.


 


As an inducement and condition to the Lender’s willingness to provide a term credit facility in an aggregate principal amount of up to $5,800,000 to Hoku on the terms and conditions set forth in the Credit Agreement, Hoku has requested its parent company, Tianwei New Energy Holdings Co., Ltd. (“Tianwei”), and Tianwei has agreed, to procure a standby letter of credit (the “Letter of Credit”) in favor of the Lender to secure Hoku’s obligations to the Lender pursuant to the Credit Agreement.  In addition, Tianwei procured a standby letter of credit (together with the Letter of Credit, the “Letters of Credit”) in favor of the Lender to secure Hoku’s obligations to the Lender pursuant to the Credit Agreement.


 


In consideration of Tianwei’s procuring the Letter of Credit, Hoku agrees to reimburse Tianwei for all interest, fees and expenses incurred by Tianwei pursuant to the Letter of Credits and all other interest, fees and expenses (including reasonable counsel fees) incurred by Tianwei in connection with the negotiation, execution or performance of the Letter of Credits (collectively, the “Reimbursement Obligations”), by promptly paying all amounts of the Reimbursement Obligations requested by Tianwei in immediately available funds to the bank account specified by Tianwei.


 


This letter agreement will become effective upon the execution and delivery hereof.  This letter agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of hereof.


 


This letter agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the law of the State of New York, without regard to the conflicts of law rules of such state.


 


 Very truly yours,




	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	TIANWEI NEW ENERGY HOLDINGS CO., LTD.	 
	 	 	 	 
	
 

	
By: 

	/s/ Zhengfei Gao	 
	 	 	Name:   Zhengfei Gao	 
	 	 	Title:     General Manager	 
	Agreed and accepted:	 	 	 






	 	 	 	 	 	 
	HOKU CORPORATION	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	
/s/ Scott B. Paul

	 	 	
 

	 
	 	
Name:   Scott B. Paul

	 	 	
 

	 
	 	
Title:     Chief Executive Officer
#### MOORE v. GEORGE A. HORMEL & CO. et al.

District Court, S. D. New *York.*

June 5, 1942.

See also 2 F.R.D. 340.

J. Arthur Adler, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Breed, Abbott & Morgan, of New York City (Gerald J. Craugh, of New York City,, of counsel), for defendants.

MANDELBAUM, District Judge.

Plaintiff served a notice of examination upon defendants whereby he sought to take the deposition of one Jay C. Hormel, President of both defendants, in New York City.

Defendant seeks an order directing that such deposition be taken at Austin, Minnesota, the principal place of business of the defendants and the place where the officer sought to be examined resides, and that plaintiff be required to pay defendants a reasonable counsel fee for the attendance of one attorney at the taking of the deposition, plus traveling expenses for said attorney, or in the alternative, that said depo*16*sitioa*be taken upon written interrogatories.

In this district, two cases have held that the oral examination of a non-resident officer of a foreign corporation be held at the principal place of business of such corporation. Fairwater Transportation Co., Inc., v. Chris-Craft Corp., D.C., 1 F.R.D. 509; Cohen v. Pennsylvania R. Co., D.C., 30 F.Supp. 419. I have examined these cases and find them to be distinguishable from the one at bar.

 Since the- court has the power to make any order which will further the ends of justice (Rule 30(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c) the court will specify the procedure to be followed. The attorneys are all in New York and it would therefore appear to be much less expensive and troublesome to have the party sought to be examined come to New York for the examination. This was the procedure followed in Clair v. Philadelphia Storage Battery Co., D.C., 27 F.Supp. 777, and seems to be the more practicable way of accomplishing the same result. However, plaintiff will be required to pay to defendants the reasonable traveling expenses incident to the trip of its officer to New York, and reasonable hotel expenses while his examination is being conducted, said amounts to be taxable as disbursements in the event that plaintiff recovers costs of the action. Local Civil Rule 12, Southern District of New York.

Accordingly, defendant’s motion is denied and the officer designated in plaintiff’s notice of examination is to appear for examination at the place designated therein, the date and time and amount of expenses to be settled in the order which- will be submitted. Should the plaintiff refuse to pay the reasonable traveling and hotel expenses of defendant’s officer as indicated in the opinion, defendant’s motion is granted and plaintiff will be required to pay defendants the reasonable counsel fees and traveling expenses incident to the trip to Minnesota.

Settle order on notice in accordance with the above.
Advance copies of this statement are made available to the
press under lock-up conditions with the explicit
understanding that the data are embargoed until 8:30 a.m.
Eastern Daylight Time.


                        Statement of
                              
                     Kathleen P. Utgoff
                        Commissioner
                 Bureau of Labor Statistics
                              
                   Friday, August 2, 2002


     Labor market conditions were little changed in July.
The unemployment rate held at 5.9 percent and nonfarm
payroll employment was flat at 130.8 million.  Payroll
employment has been essentially unchanged over the past
5 months and the unemployment rate has remained within a
narrow 5.8- to 6.0-percent range since April.

     The number of unemployed, at 8.3 million, was close to
its May and June levels.  Long-term unemployment of 15 weeks
or longer edged down in July.  That measure had risen
continuously over the prior 13 months.

     In July, approximately 4.2 million persons were
involuntary part-time workers (that is, they would have
preferred full-time work), an increase from June.  The
number of involuntary part-timers jumped significantly
following the terrorist attacks last September, but since
then has not shown any clear trend.

     Services industry payrolls expanded by 50,000 in July,
largely due to continued growth (+29,000) in health
services.  Elsewhere in the services division, employment in
help supply services declined in July.  From February
through June, this industry had added 145,000 jobs.

     Construction employment fell by 30,000 on a seasonally
adjusted basis in July.  Job losses occurred throughout the
industry.

     Employment in other major private-sector industries was
little changed in July.  For the manufacturing industry
(-7,000), July was the fourth consecutive month in which job
losses were less than 30,000; they had averaged 109,000 per
month in 2001.  Over the month, several manufacturing
industries saw some minor improvement over recent employment
trends.  These included rubber and plastics, printing and
publishing, and electrical equipment.  Motor vehicle
manufacturers registered some job losses in July, and
declines continued in aircraft manufacturing.  The
manufacturing workweek shrank by four-tenths of an hour to
40.7 hours, more than erasing the June gain.  Factory
overtime also declined, down by two-tenths of an hour to 4.1
hours.

     Average hourly earnings for production or
nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls were up
by 4 cents over the month to $14.79.  Over the year, average
hourly earnings increased by 3.2 percent.
     
     Overall, the labor market held steady again in July and
has exhibited no signs of either significant deterioration
or marked improvement in the past several months.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,



AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO



SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Quarterly Report of Jewett-Cameron Trading Company Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that, 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; and



(2)

The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:   July 7, 2006

Signed:  /s/  Daniel R. McDonell





Daniel R. McDonell

Chief Financial Officer
#### Excitement Video, Inc., Respondent, v Village of Springville, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 518]

Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Lunn, Fahey and Pine, JJ.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of - )

)

Houston Dynamic Service, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 62842

)

Under Contract No. W912EE-19-P-0078 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. Luke Lau

 Executive Vice President

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq.

 Engineer Chief Trial Attorney

John M. Breland, Esq. 

 Engineer Trial Attorney

 U.S. Army Engineer District, Vicksburg

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: May 6, 2022

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62842, Appeal of Houston Dynamic 

Service, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: May 6, 2022

HEIDI L. OSTERHOUT

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 163 (Thursday, August 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 40176]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17888]



[[Page 40176]]

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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and First-
Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1): August 24, 
2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
August 18, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail 
Express, Priority Mail, & First-Class Package Service Contract 22 to 
Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, 
Docket Nos. MC2017-177, CP2017-278.

Stanley F. Mires,
Attorney, Federal Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2017-17888 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1):*                         August 24, 2017.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 18, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, & First-Class Package Service Contract 22 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2017-177, CP2017-278.                

Stanley F. Mires,

Attorney, Federal Compliance.

[FR Doc. 2017-17888 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 46 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 46

To reduce the amount of financial assistance provided to the Government 
of Mexico in response to the illegal border crossings from Mexico into 
 the United States, which serve to dissipate the political discontent 
            with the higher unemployment rate within Mexico.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 7, 2015

  Mr. Vitter introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To reduce the amount of financial assistance provided to the Government 
of Mexico in response to the illegal border crossings from Mexico into 
 the United States, which serve to dissipate the political discontent 
            with the higher unemployment rate within Mexico.

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

SECTION 1. BORDER CROSSING ACCOUNTABILITY.

    (a) Estimation of Annual Illegal Border Crossings.--Not later than 
30 days after the end of each fiscal year, the Secretary of State, in 
consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall estimate 
the number of illegal border crossings that occurred during such fiscal 
year along the southern land border of the United States.
    (b) Reduction of Foreign Assistance.--
            (1) In general.--Except as provided under paragraph (2), 
        the Secretary of State, shall proportionately reduce the amount 
        of financial assistance provided to the Government of Mexico 
        for each fiscal year by a total of $1,000 for each illegal 
        border crossing from Mexico to the United States during the 
        previous fiscal year.
            (2) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the 
        Secretary of State may decide not to reduce the amounts 
        appropriated for the Government of Mexico from the 
        International Military Education and Training Fund, the 
        International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement Fund, and 
        the fund to carry out nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, 
        demining, and related programs and activities.
                                 <all>
```
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted March 10, 2010

  Decided March 10, 2010

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 09‐2357

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

JUAN ALBERTO CASTILLO,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division

No. 05 CR 601‐8

Rebecca R. Pallmeyer,

Judge.

O R D E R

Juan Alberto Castillo pleaded guilty to conspiring to import 1 kilogram or more of

heroin into the United States, see 21 U.S.C. § 963; 18 U.S.C. § 2, and received a sentence of

120 months’ imprisonment.  In his plea agreement, he waived his right to appeal his

conviction and sentence.  He filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed counsel seeks to

withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), because he cannot identify any

nonfrivolous argument to pursue.  Castillo responded to his lawyer’s submissions.  See CIR.

R. 51(b).  We limit our review to the potential issues identified in the facially adequate brief

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 09‐2357 Page 2

submitted by counsel and in Castillo’s response.  See United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968,

973‐74 (7th Cir. 2002).

Castillo has provided no hint that he wishes to have his guilty plea set aside, so

counsel rightly omits a discussion of the plea’s voluntariness or the plea colloquy.  See

United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 671 (7th Cir. 2002).

Both counsel and Castillo consider whether Castillo could challenge his sentence.

Counsel focuses on the possible applicability of a safety‐valve reduction, see U.S.S.G.

§ 5C1.2, and Castillo on the calculation of his criminal history points.  See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1.

Both of these arguments, however, are foreclosed by the appeal waiver.  If the guilty plea

stands, so does the waiver.  See Nunez v. United States, 546 F.3d 450, 453 (7th Cir. 2008).

Finally, counsel, who did not represent Castillo at trial, also considers whether

Castillo could argue that his trial counsel was ineffective.  But a challenge to the adequacy

of counsel’s performance is best explored in a collateral proceeding so that a more complete

record can be developed.  See Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504‐05 (2003); United

States v. Harris, 394 F.3d 543, 557‐58 (7th Cir. 2005).

For the foregoing reasons, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS

Castillo’s appeal.
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Gary E. Colbert, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Aerosonic Corporation;



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.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The registrant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)) for the registrant 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 registrant, 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) 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





(c) 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors:



(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.



Date: March 31, 2004







/s/ Gary E. Colbert



Gary E. Colbert

Chief Financial Officer

TPA:316553:1