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



 



	 
Summary Translation

	Exhibit 4.55





 


Loan Agreement







Contract No.:2010JIYINDAIZIDI1010326







Borrower:Shijie Kaiyuan Auto Trade Co., Ltd.


Lender:CITIC Shijiazhuang Branch


Signing Date:July 16, 2010


Loan Amount:RMB80,000,000







Length of maturity:From July 19, 2010 to July 19, 2011


Use of Loan:Working Capital


Loan Interest:5.31%


Date of Draft:July 19, 2010


Withdrawal Amount:RMB80,000,000


Payment Method:The principal shall be fully repaid with interest at the maturity date of the loan.


Repayment Date:July 19, 2011







Loan Guarantee:Mortgage Pledge Guarantee


- Hebei Chuangjie Trading Co., Ltd entered into The Maximum Pledge Contract with the lender, with the contract no.2010JIYINZUIQUANZHIDI1014378.
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

November 29, 2005

Mr. Charles S. Siegel

Waters & Kraus, LLP

3219 McKinney Avenue, Suite 3000

Dallas, TX 75204

Mr. Stephen G. Tipps

Baker & Botts, L.L.P.

910 Louisiana, One Shell Plaza

Houston, TX 77002-4995

RE:Case Number:  03-0895

Court of Appeals Number:  

Trial Court Number:  

Style:Union Carbide

v.

Audrey Amelia Adams, et al.

Dear Counsel:

Today the Multidistrict Litigation Panel issued the enclosed order concerning Pre-September 1, 2003 Asbestos Cases in the above-referenced case.

Sincerely,

Andrew Weber, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Case No. 03-0895Page 1
1

The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable

Arthur J. Boylan, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-3329

___________

Vincent Michael Holthaus, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota

Diana Eagon; Diane Krenz; *

Doug Thomson; Hennepin * [UNPUBLISHED]

County Sheriff’s Department, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: February 18, 2002

 Filed: April 3, 2002

___________

Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Minnesota inmate Vincent Michael Holthaus appeals from the final judgment

entered in the District Court1

 for the District of Minnesota dismissing his 42 U.S.C.
-2-

§ 1983 action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). For the reasons discussed below, we

affirm the judgment of the district court. 

Holthaus claimed that defendants conspired to deprive him of his due process

and equal protection rights by selectively prosecuting him and sentencing him more

harshly than others who were similarly situated. After carefully reviewing the record,

we agree with the district court that Holthaus’s complaint failed to allege sufficient

facts to support his claims, see Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir.

1985), and that the claims would in any event be barred under Heck v. Humphrey,

512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district

court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL 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
the undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his or her
capacity as an officer of e.Digital Corporation (the "Company"), that, to his or
her knowledge, the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period
ended September 30, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





Date:
      November 16, 2009/s/ ROBERT PUTNAMRobert
      Putnam,Interim
      Chief Accounting Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)Date:
      November 16, 2009/s/ ALFRED H. FALKAlfred
      H. Falk,President
      and CEO,(Principal
      Executive Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1241

ERICK TIMOTHY GOODALL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CITY OF RICHMOND,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:21-cv-00333-JAG)

Submitted: August 18, 2022 Decided: August 22, 2022

Before WYNN, THACKER, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Erick Timothy Goodall, Appellant Pro Se. Shannan Marie Fitzgerald, OFFICE OF THE 

CITY ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1241 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Erick Timothy Goodall appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil rights 

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of 

Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). On appeal, we confine our review to 

the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Goodall’s informal 

brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited 

appellate review of the court’s orders. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 

(4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, 

our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). 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

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1241 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
Exhibit 35.4



|     |                                                                             |                              
|---- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------
|LOGO |                                                                             | Commercial Mortgage Servicing
|     | D1050-084, 8th Floor
401 South Tryon St. Charlotte, NC 28202
1-800-326-1334

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of February 1, 2013, by and among GS Mortgage
Securities Corporation II, as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer and Certificate Administrator, LNR Partners, LLC, as Special Servicer, Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc., as Operating Advisor and U.S. Bank
National Association as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2013-GC10 (the Agreement). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 10.07 of this Agreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2018 through
December 31, 2018 (the Reporting Period), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations
under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has
executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.



|                 
|-----------------
|                 
|LOGO             
|Leslie Hayton    
|Managing Director
|Wells Fargo Bank 



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Jeffrey A. Green, Chief Executive Officer, DATATRAK International, Inc.,certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of DATATRAKInternational, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 13, 2004           /s/ Jeffrey A. Green     Jeffrey A. Green,   President and Chief Executive Officer
_


first amendment

to the

employment agreement

MARCH 15, 2009

WHEREAS, TESCO CORPORATION, a corporation organized under the laws of the province of Alberta, Canada (the "Company") and JAMES A. LANK ("Executive") entered into the Employment Agreement effective on December 31, 2007 (the "Agreement"); and

WHEREAS, notwithstanding the approval by the compensation committee and the board of directors of the Company of an increase in Executive's Base Annual Salary commencing January 1, 2009 to $255,000, the parties recognize that Executive has voluntarily refrained from drawing that increased Base Annual Salary to date; and

WHEREAS, Executive and the Company have now agreed that commencing March 15, 2009, Executive's Base Annual Salary to be actually paid for the remainder of 2009 shall be equal to the amount of Executive's Base Annual Salary for the same portion of 2008, reduced by 10% ("Reduction"); and

WHEREAS, the Company and Executive agree that such Reduction alone shall not constitute a Good Reason under the Agreement; and

WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to amend the definition of Base Annual Salary for the calculation of certain benefits provided under the Agreement for the calendar year 2009;

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, it is agreed as follows: 

1.The following shall be added at the end of the Section 5(b):
"For the purposes of calculating the STIP for the calendar year 2009, Base Annual Salary shall mean the amount approved by the compensation committee of the Board of Directors and the Board of Directors in November 2008 which is $255,000, without regard as to the actual amount of Base Annual Salary paid to Executive for the calendar year 2009."


2.New subsection 7(j) shall be added as follows:
"(j)Certain Definitions for Calendar year 2009.  For the purposes of calculating amounts payable under Sections 7(c), (d) and (e) during the calendar year 2009, Base Annual Salary shall mean the amount approved by the compensation committee of the Board of Directors and the Board of Directors in November 2008 which is $255,000 without regard as to the actual amount of Base Annual Salary paid to Executive for the calendar year 2009."




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment to the Agreement effective as of March 15, 2009.

EXECUTIVE:



/s/ James A. Lank

James A. Lank







 

EMPLOYER:



Tesco Corporation



 

By:  /s/ Julio M. Quintana

Julio M. Quintana

President and
Chief Executive Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 22, 2017

d0315 

# Order

Clerk March 22, 2017

153772

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 153772

COA: 329396

Wayne CC: 02

- 013849

- FC

TERRY DeJUAN HOLLIS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 24, 2016 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered. We DIRECT the Wayne County Pr osecuting

Attorney to answer the application for leave to appeal within 28 days after the date of this

order.

The application for leave to appeal remains pending.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AND EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(b) AND 15d-14(b)


(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Gulf Resources, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief:





(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 results of the operation of the Company.





Dated: August 15, 2011By:
/s/ Xiaobin LiuXiaobin LiuChief Executive Officer





Dated: August 15, 2011By:
/s/ Min LiMin LiChief Financial Officer
#### Salvador CAMPOS, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-71509.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*70Submitted Dec. 20, 2007.*

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

M. Yehlen Brooks, Esq., Stockton, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Emily A. Radford, Esq., Melissa Leibman, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Salvador Campos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing Campos’ appeal from an Immigration Judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review Campos’ ineffective assistance of counsel claim because he failed to raise it before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. *See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358*F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining that this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I,
Nicholas L. Teti, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Inamed Corporation (the "Registrant"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Inamed Corporation and will be retained by Inamed Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

|Dated: March 28, 2003                                                                                              |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 
|                                                                                                                   |  | 
|/s/NICHOLAS L. TETINicholas L. Teti,
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) |  | 

---

QuickLinks
Amendment to Confidentiality, effective November 24, 2008



 Exhibit 10.37.1 
  

	
	November 19, 2008


 Mr. Gary Muto 
 Dear Gary, 
 The Confidentiality, Non-Solicitation of Associates and Non-Competition Agreement (the “Confidentiality
Agreement”) dated November 6, 2008, that you entered into with Ann Taylor, Inc. (the “Company”), is hereby amended, effective immediately to add following new Paragraph 10: 
 10. Termination for Good Reason. If you terminate your employment for “Good Reason” (as defined below) you will not be deemed to have
voluntarily resigned and you will be entitled to the benefits set forth in Paragraph 2 of this Agreement as if you had been terminated by the Company without Cause. As used herein, “Good Reason” shall mean: (1) a change in your
reporting relationship so that you no longer report to the CEO of Ann Taylor Stores Corporation; (2) action by the Company resulting in a diminution of your responsibilities as the head of the Ann Taylor LOFT Division; (3) the
Company’s relocation of your principal place of employment outside of the New York City metropolitan area; or (4) the Company’s breach of any contractual agreements with you, provided the Company does not cure such breach within
fourteen calendar days of notice from you. If you terminate your employment without Good Reason, the Company will not waive the provisions of Paragraph 2(b) of this Agreement or shorten the Non-Competition period pursuant to Paragraph 2(c) of this
Agreement. 
 Except as amended hereby, all other terms and conditions of the Confidentiality Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect. 
  

	
	Very truly yours,
	
	 /s/ Kay Krill

	Kay Krill
	President & Chief Executive Officer


 Agreed: 
  

	
	 /s/ Gary Muto

	Gary Muto
	President, Ann Taylor LOFT
	Dated: 11/24/08
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-30163

Conference Calendar

 

WANDA FAYE HUNT, individually and as natural

tutrix on behalf of Keshia Lachun Hunt,

Alfreda Yuvette Hunt, Chenitra Renee Hunt,

Arthur Raymond Taylor, Jr., and Calisha

Kawanda Hunt,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

STEVE DEMENT BAIL BONDS, INC.;

STEVE DEMENT; DAN RECKTENWALD;

MARK ROBBINS,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-168

- - - - - - - - - -

August 22, 1996

Before KING, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Wanda Faye Hunt appeals from the dismissal of her 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 claim for failure to state a claim pursuant to FED. R. CIV.

P. 12(b)(6). Hunt contends that the defendants’ actions had
No. 96-30163

- 2 -

sufficient nexus with state action by virtue of state law

allowing bail bondsmen to arrest their principals and that the 

defendants were state actors because they were performing a

traditionally exclusive state function.

We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties

and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

essentially the reasons stated by the district court. See Hunt

v. Steve Dement Bail, Inc., No. 95-CV-168 (W.D. La. Feb. 12,

1996).

AFFIRMED.
#### Samuel COWIE, Plaintiff, v. CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY, Defendant.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

April 10, 1961.

Zwerling & Zwerling, New York City, for plaintiff; Irving Zwerling, New York City, of counsel.

Burlingham, Hupper & Kennedy, New York City, for defendant; Owen B. Walsh, New York City, of counsel.

SUGARMAN, District Judge.

Interrogatories were propounded to plaintiff by defendant and received by plaintiff’s attorneys on December 19, 1960.

By letter dated February 7, 1961, plaintiff’s attorneys requested that the interrogatories be withdrawn as repetitious.

By letter dated February 9, 1961, defendant’s attorneys withdrew certain of the interrogatories.

By “notice of motion” dated February 27,1961 plaintiff’s attorneys “move * * for an order striking the Interrogatories requested by the defendant herein”.

F.R.Civ.P. 33, 28 U.S.C.A., clearly delineates the proper procedure to be employed by a party seeking to avoid answering interrogatories served upon him.

It is by the service, within 10 days after receipt of the interrogatories, of written objections thereto together with a notice of hearing the objections at the earliest practicable time. It is not by the service more than two months after receipt of the interrogatories of a “notice of motion * * .* for an order striking the interrogatories”.

There is no legal excuse offered for the plaintiff’s failure to make proper or timely objection to the interrogatories.

The motion to strike defendant’s interrogatories is denied.

It is so ordered.