alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
f8k021111ex10iii_westergaard.htm


Exhibit 10.3


 


Supply Agreement


 


Contract No.: 20100719


Place of Signing:Jinjiang


Date: 7/23/2010


Buyer: Fujian Jinjiang Chendai Ansheng Shoes&Clothing Co., Ltd.


Seller: Fujian QiTe Shoe Materials Co., Ltd.







1. Name, Specification, Quantity, Price, Delivery Schedule and Quality of the Product



	
Item

	
Specification

	
Unit

	
Quantity

	
Price(RMB)

	
Amount(RMB)

	
Delivery Schedule


	
EVA sole

	
 -

	
pear

	
26,123

	
 26.33

	
687,818.59

	
 -


	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 












2. Quality and Technical Standards, Period and Condition of Quality Guarantee:


Subject to the sample provided after the order is confirmed.







3. Method and Place of Delivery: Ansheng’s warehouse







4. Method, Destination and Cost of Transportation:


The Seller shall bear all the shipping cost.







5. Package Standard, Supply and Recovery of the Packing Material:


Subject to the order.







6. Standard and Method of Inspection and Acceptance, Period for Objection:


Subject to the sample and quality control manual supplied by the Seller.







7. Period and Method of Payment:


When requested by the Buyer, the Supplier shall deliver the products with the ordered quality and quantity to the place designated by the Buyer along with the necessary invoices and documents. The Buyer shall make the payment within 2 month after the delivery.







8. Breach of Contract:


If there is any damage or loss caused by a) delay of delivery; b) quality problem; and/or c) lack of quantity, the Supplier shall bear the liability.







9. Dispute Settlement:


By friendly consultations.







10. Miscellaneous







11. There are two counterparts of this Agreement. This Agreement shall take effect at the date hereof.


 




  





  











  












	
Buyer

	 	
Seller


	 	 	 
	

/s/ Fujian QiTe Shoe Materials Co., Ltd.

	 	

/s/ Fujian Jinjiang Chendai Ansheng Shoes&Clothing Co., Ltd.


	Company Name:  Fujian QiTe Shoe Materials Co., Ltd.	 	Company Name:  Fujian Jinjiang Chendai Ansheng Shoes&Clothing Co., Ltd.
	
Address: Andou, Chendai

	 	
Address: Andou Industry Park


	
Legal Representative:

	 	
Legal Representative:


	
Agent:

	 	
Agent:


	
Tel: 0595-85185688

	 	
Tel:0595-85187788


	
Bank Name:

	 	
Bank Name:


	
Bank Account:

	 	
Bank Account:


	
Taxpayer Identification Number:

	 	
Taxpayer Identification Number:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0091

IN THE MATTER OF:

A.L.H.,

Respondent and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time to 

produce transcripts on appeal, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Court Reporter Jan Hansen 

Barry is granted an extension of time to and including May 24, 2021, 

within which to prepare, file, and serve the transcripts requested on 

appeal. 

The Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order upon the district court 

and the court reporter.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 5 2021

04/05/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0091
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mark Beigelman, Appellant.

[610 NYS2d 817]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), rendered December 16, 1992, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the sentence and plea are vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings on the indictment.

As the People correctly concede, as part of a plea bargain, the court improperly agreed to place the defendant on interim probation by postponing his sentence to allow him to enter a drug treatment program, and promising him that it would vacate his guilty plea if he successfully completed the program *(see, People v Rodney E.,*77 NY2d 672; *People v Johnson,*197 AD2d 638). Mangano, P. J., Balletta, O’Brien, Hart and Florio, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          27,179
<SECURITIES>                                    10,506
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,202
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,856
<INVENTORY>                                     12,882
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                72,821
<PP&E>                                          27,558
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,063
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  77,805
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,063
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        59,960
<OTHER-SE>                                         667
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    77,805
<SALES>                                         53,329<F1>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                53,329
<CGS>                                           33,151<F2>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,151
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,797
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    22
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  10
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,880)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (658)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,222)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,222)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)
<FN>
<F1>Includes revenues from licensing of software and support services.
<F2>Includes costs from licensing of software and support services.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Caliper Life Sciences, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter
F. McAree, Vice President, Finance and Principal Accounting 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, to the best of my
knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section
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 Caliper.

May 10, 2004

                                                  /s/ Peter F. McAree
                                                  ------------------------------

                                                  Principal Financial Officer

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed
filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of
Caliper's under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, irrespective of any general incorporation
language contained in such filing.
Exhibit 24





POWER OF ATTORNEY








KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned directors and officers of American Capital Senior Floating, Ltd., a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Maryland (the “Corporation”), hereby constitute and appoint John R. Erickson,  Samuel A. Flax and Cydonii V. Fairfax and each of them (with full power to each of them to act alone), his/her true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents for him/her and on his/her behalf and in his/her name, place and stead, in all cases with full power of substitution and resubstitution, in any hand and all capacities, to sign, execute and affix his/her seal to and file with the Securities and Exchange Commission (or any other governmental or regulatory authority) the Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014, and all amendments or supplements thereto with all exhibits and any and all documents required to be filed with respect thereto, and grants to each of them full power and authority to do and to perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises in order to effectuate the same as fully and to all intents and purposes as he/she might or could do if personally present, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, or any of them, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned directors and/or officers has hereunto set his/her hand and seal, as of the date specified.





AMERICAN CAPITAL SENIOR FLOATING, LTD.Date:  January 30, 2015By:  /s/ Malon WilkusMalon WilkusChair and Chief Executive Officer





SignatureTitleDate/s/ Malon WilkusDirector, Chair and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)January 30, 2015Malon Wilkus/s/ John R. EricksonExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)January 30, 2015John R. Erickson/s/ Phyllis R. CaldwellDirectorJanuary 30, 2015Phyllis R. Caldwell/s/ Gil CrawfordDirectorJanuary 30, 2015Gil Crawford/s/ Larry K. HarveyDirectorJanuary 30, 2015Larry K. Harvey/s/ Stan LundineDirectorJanuary 30, 2015Stan Lundine
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS OF THIS QUARTERLY REPORT
ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             815
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,654
<ALLOWANCES>                                       417
<INVENTORY>                                      2,903
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,749
<PP&E>                                           8,261
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,283
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,548
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      54,136
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,283
<SALES>                                          6,799
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,153
<CGS>                                            3,125
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,038
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,570
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  19
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    526
<INCOME-TAX>                                       164
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                362
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       362
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN
THIS FORM 10QSB FOR PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       5,335,452
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,386,820
<PP&E>                                         243,728
<DEPRECIATION>                                 123,107
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,561,321
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          341,359
<BONDS>                                      2,600,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        54,142
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,565,820
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,561,321
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               235,969
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,062,409
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               794,591
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              87,750
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,708,781)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,708,781)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,708,781)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.32)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

SETH LOUIS HAMILTON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 359 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 17th day of May, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Regina A. Smith, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Alieu Drammeh, Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Alieu Drammeh, appellant pro se.Serpe, Andree &amp; Kaufman (Jonathan H. Kaufman of counsel), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Sally E. Unger, J.), entered March 16, 2017. The order denied defendant's motion, in effect, for leave to renew his prior motion to vacate a default judgment of that court entered April 5, 2004 upon defendant's failure to appear or answer the complaint, which prior motion had been denied in a decision and order of this court dated January 29, 2010 (see 26 Misc 3d 136[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50158[U]), which determined an appeal from an order of the Civil Court entered February 24, 2009.</p><p>ORDERED that the order entered March 16, 2017 is affirmed, without costs.</p><p>In this subrogation action, a default judgment was entered in plaintiff's favor in April 2004. In January 2009, defendant moved, by order to show cause, to vacate the default judgment. By order entered February 24, 2009, the Civil Court (Ingrid Joseph, J.) granted the motion and plaintiff appealed. By decision and order dated January 29, 2010, this court reversed that order, finding that defendant had not established a meritorious defense to the action (26 Misc 3d 136[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50158[U]), and denied defendant's motion. In January 2017, defendant again moved to vacate the default judgment. Plaintiff opposed the motion. Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court (Sally E. Unger, J.) entered March 16, 2017 which denied the motion.</p><p>As defendant had already moved to vacate the April 2004 default judgment, the subsequent motion, in effect, sought leave to renew his January 2009 motion. A motion for leave to renew "shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>prior determination" (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]), and "shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion" (CPLR 2221 [e] [3];<i> see Ciliotta v Ranieri</i>, 149 AD3d 1032, 1033 [2017]). However, defendant failed to set forth any justification for his previous failure to present the facts raised on the subsequent motion. Renewal is not available as a "second chance" for parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation (<i>see Ciliotta v Ranieri</i>,149 AD3d at 1034; <a href="../2012/2012_05147.htm" target="_blank"><i>Jovanovic v Jovanovic</i>, 96 AD3d 1019</a>, 1020 [2012]). Consequently, defendant's motion was properly denied. </p><p>Accordingly, the order is affirmed.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: November 02, 2018<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
NO. 12-09-00222-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF § APPEAL FROM THE

A.N.T. AND H.M.L., § COUNTY COURT AT LAW 

#2

MINOR CHILDREN § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pansy Leavings appeals the trial court’s orders finding her in contempt for failing 

to pay child support for A.N.T. and H.M.L., her children. In six issues, Leavings argues 

that the trial court’s contempt orders should be reversed. We dismiss for want of 

jurisdiction.

CONTEMPT ORDERS

Leavings seeks a direct appeal of contempt orders regarding her two children. 

She raises no issues related to any matters other than the contempt orders. A contempt 

order is reviewable only by a petition for writ of habeas corpus (if the person in contempt 

is confined) or a petition for writ of mandamus (if no confinement is involved). Cadle 

Co. v. Lobingier, 50 S.W.3d 662, 671 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. denied) (citing 

In re Long, 984 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex. 1999) (orig. proceeding)). We have no 

jurisdiction to review contempt orders by direct appeal. Tex. Animal Health Comm’n v. 

Nunley, 647 S.W.2d 951, 952 (Tex. 1983); Ex parte Cardwell, 416 S.W.2d 382, 384 

(Tex. 1967) (orig. proceeding); Wagner v. Warnasch, 156 Tex. 334, 339, 295 S.W.2d 

890, 893 (1956). 

DISPOSITION
2

Because we have no jurisdiction to review contempt orders by direct appeal, the 

appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

BRIAN HOYLE

 Justice

Opinion delivered June 30, 2010.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)
#### Kevin McKENZIE, also known as Keith Barrett, Appellant, v. Alvin MALONE; Charles E. Waldman, Appellees.

No. 06-4024.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 22, 2008.

Filed: Feb. 4, 2008.

Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Kevin McKenzie appeals the district court’s1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) dismissal of his diversity action. We affirm.

Upon careful review of the record, *see Rodgers v. Curators of Univ. of Mo.,*135 F.3d 1216, 1218-19 (8th Cir.1998) (standard of review), we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that McKenzie intentionally failed to prosecute his case and comply with the court’s scheduling order, resulting in undue delay that was prejudicial to the defense. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case as a sanction. *See Doe v. Cassel,*403 F.3d 986, 988-90 (8th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (dismissal for undue delay and failure to comply with court orders was not abuse of discretion when litigation had been pending for 18 months and petitioner repeatedly failed to meet court’s discovery schedule); *Farnsworth v. Kansas City, Mo.,*863 F.2d 33, 34 (8th Cir.1988) (per curiam) (pro se litigants are not excused from complying with court orders).

Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Beverly Stites Jones, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, now retired.
Exhibit 99.3


        Certification under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I Phillip L.
Jones, as Chief Operating Officer of Profile Technologies, Inc., hereby certify
that the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
September 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the
information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
ended September 30, 2002 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Profile Technologies, Inc.



                                                      /s/ Phillip L. Jones
                                                      --------------------
                                                      Phillip L. Jones
                                                      Chief Operating Officer
* Although the underlying case was filed by Grea t W estCas ualt y C om pan y an d Tw in Lake Trucking, Ltd., Gary L. Sm ith intervened and is appellant herein. NO. 07-01-0317 -CV IN THE COU RT OF APP EALS FOR THE SEVENT H DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMA RILLO PANE L C APRIL 2, 2002

______________________________ GARY L. SMITH, APP ELLANT *

V. TANYA DIONNE BRYANT, APPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE 16 5TH DIST RICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNT Y; NO. 99-31407; HON ORABLEELIZABE TH RAY, JUDGE

_______________________________ Before QUINN and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ. Appellant Gary

L. Sm ith filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s order denying his mo tion to reinstate. The clerk’s record has been filed and the court reporter has indicated that there is no reporter’s record in the underlying case. After tw o m otions for2

extensions of time in which to file a brief were granted, Sm ith’s brief was due to be filed by January 21, 200 2. The b rief was not filed. By letter dated Ma rch 14, 2002, t his Court notified counsel of the defect and also directed her to reasonably explain the failure to file a brief together with a showing that appellee Tanya Dionne B ry ant has not been sign ific ant lyinj ure d by

thedela y by

Ma rch 25, 200 2. C oun sel d id not respond and the brief remains outstan ding. Accordingl y, we dism iss the appeal for want o f p ros ecu tion and failu re to co m ply with an order of this Co urt. See Tex. R. A pp. P. 38.8(a)( 1) and 42 .3(b) and (c).
Don H. Rea vis Justice Do not publish.