alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
f8k021111ex10xvii_kurrant.htm


Exhibit 10.17


 


Sales Contract of Shanghai High Definition Technology Industrial Co., Ltd.


 


Contract #: SH10110802



	
Supplier: Shanghai High Definition Technology Industrial Co., Ltd. (“HDTI”)

	 	
Purchaser: Shandong Zhidali Industrial Co., Ltd. (“Zhidali”)


	
Company’s Name: HDTI


Tax ID: 310104749292949


Address: 1018 East Sanliqiao Road, Pudong New 


District, Shanghai


Tel/Fax: 021-61871158


Bank: China Industrial and Commercial Bank Caohejin Development Zone Branch


Bank Account: 1001266319200087156


Zip code: 200125

	 	
Company’s Name: Zhidali


Tax ID: 370481672204284


Address: 1 Zhidali Road, Economy Development 


Zone, Tengzhou City, Shandong Province


Tel/Fax: 0632-3957775/0632-3957770


Bank: China Industrial and Commercial Bank Tengzhou City Branch


Bank Account: 1605003109200334240


Zip code: 277500








	
 


Unless otherwise agreed, the purchase price shall be made in ¥RMB and the parties shall follow the clauses in this Agreement:


 


	
#

	
Name

	
Model

	
Quantity

	
Unit

	
Price (include sales tax)


	
1

	
Modem Chips

	
HD2812

	
5,400

	
Pieces

	
¥21.78


	
Total: RMB ¥117,612








	 	 
	1. 	
Technology/Quality Standards: shall follow the Technology Agreement, Quality Agreement and Sample Quality Standards agreed to by the parties.


	2.	Guaranty: provide the services of repair, exchange and return within one (1) year from the date of sales.
	3.	Quality Inspection, Methods and Grace Period: the Purchaser shall conduct the quality inspection within 5 business days upon receipt of the delivery in the way agreed to by the parties; failure to conduct the inspection as above will be deemed as approval of quality upon inspection.
	4.	Packing: the products shall be packed in a solid, anti-quake/slip/damp way suitable for long distance delivery.
	5. 	Delivered Place: the Purchaser shall desire the place for delivery within the territory of China (upon the parties’ agreement) and the costs for delivery and package shall be paid by Supplier.
	6. 	Delivery Time: within 3 business days upon the receipt of purchase price on Supplier’s bank account, Supplier shall deliver the orders in accordance with the fax order received from the Purchaser.
	7.	Fee Settlement: The purchase price shall be paid by a lump sum payment.
	8.	
Miscellaneous: this Agreement shall be executed upon the following signatures and seals in two copies.  The fax shall be deemed as of same effect as this Agreement.








	 	 
	
Supplier: HDTI


[Corporate Seal- Seal for Contracts Only]


11/08/2010

	
Purchaser: Zhidali


[Corporate Seal- Seal for Contracts Only]


11/09/2010 [signature]
<PAGE>

COMMUNITY CENTRAL BANK CORPORATION
FORM 10-Q (continued)

                                   EXHIBIT 32

                             Rule 1350 CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the
undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of Community Central
Bank Corporation (the "Corporation") that the Quarterly Report of the
Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 operations of the
Corporation as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial
statements included in such report.

Dated: August 14, 2008                       By:  /s/ DAVID A. WIDLAK
                                                  ----------------------------
                                                  David A. Widlak;
                                                  President and CEO
                                                  (Principal Executive Officer)

Dated: August 14, 2008                       By:  /s/ RAY T. COLONIUS
                                                  ----------------------------
                                                  Ray T. Colonius;
                                                  Treasurer
                                                  (Principal Financial and
                                                  Accounting Officer)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0494 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DAVID ALAN SPAGNOLO ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including May 3 1 , 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 26 2021

04/26/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0494
#### U.S. HOME CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARYLAND CASUALTY CO., a Maryland insurance company; Zurich American Insurance Company, a New York insurance company, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-15092.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 6, 2007.

Filed Dec. 20, 2007.

Arthur W. Pederson, Esq., Nathaniel Bishop Rose, Esq., Mohr Hackett Peder*23son Blankley & Randolph, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

[Ret] Joshua D. Rogers, Esq., Steven Plitt, Esq., Kunz Plitt Hyland Demlong & Kleifield, P.C., Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, COWEN,* and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The Honorable Robert E. Cowen, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant’s complaint fails to allege any property damage other than the defective stucco and damage resulting from repair of that stucco. Under Aizona law, the faulty stucco, standing alone, does not constitute an “occurrence” as defined in the insurance policy. *See United States Fid. & Guar. Corp. v. Advance Roofing & Supply Co.,*163 Ariz. 476, 788 P.2d 1227, 1233 (1989); *see also Lennar Corp. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.,*214 Ariz. 255, 151 P.3d 538, 545 (2007). Additionally, the cost of repairing the stucco does not constitute “property damage” under the language of the policy. *See Advance Roofing,*788 P.2d at 1233; *see also Lennar Corp.,*151 P.3d at 545. Appellant’s reliance on *University Mechanical Contractors of Arizona, Inc. v. Puritan Insurance Co.,*150 Aiz. 299, 723 P.2d 648 (1986), is misplaced in this case.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 16

- 00180

- CR
Lawrence ARMSTEAD , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2014CR5830 The Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: August 3, 2016
DIS MISSED
On June 16, 2016 , we notified the appellant that the trial court’s certification in this appeal states that “this c riminal case is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” Additionally, the clerk’s record contains a written waiver signed by the appellant pursuant to which he entered a plea of nolo contendere

. The trial court’s judgment also ref lects that the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. Therefore, the trial court’s certification accurately reflects that this criminal case is a plea

- bargain case. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 25.2(a)(2).04

- 16

- 00180

- CR

- 2

- In our June 16, 2016 order, we warned the appellant that “[this] appeal must be dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.” See id. R. 25.2(d). We ordered that this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) unless the appellant caused an amended trial court certification to be filed by November 13, 2015 that showed the appellant has the right of appeal. See id. R. 25.2(d), 37.1; see also Ch avez v. State , 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Daniels v. State , 110 S.W.3d 174, 176 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, no pet.). No response was filed. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.
PER CURIAM Do not publish
Exhibit 32.2


Certification of Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)


In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended September 30, 2016 (the “Report”) of Fifth Street Senior Floating Rate Corp . (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Steven M. Noreika , the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:


(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and


(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.





/s/   Steven M. NoreikaName:    Steven M. NoreikaDate: December 23, 2016
, C.J.

jurisdiction. NRS 34.320. Either writ is an extraordinary remedy, and whether such a writ will be considered is within this court's sole discretion. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991). Moreover, it is petitioner's burden to demonstrate that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).

Having considered petitioner's arguments in light of this court's resolution of the consolidated appeals in Docket Nos. 58530 and 59162, we are not persuaded that our intervention is warranted. Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 679, 818 P.2d at 851, 853; Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.'

, J. 

# rut-, j

Saitta

cc: Hon. Mark R. Denton, District Judge Marquis Aurbach Coffing Kemp, Jones & Coulthard, LLP John Peter Lee Ltd. Eighth District Court Clerk

'In light of our resolution of this writ petition, petitioner's emergency stay motion is denied as moot.

SUPREME COURT OF 2 NEVADA (0) 1947A
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.0

May 22, 1998
 
Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549
 
Gentlemen:
 
We have read the statements made by AutoBond Acceptance Corporation (copy
attached), which we understand were filed with the Commission, pursuant to the
requirements of Item 4 of Form 8-K, as part of the Company's Form 10-Q report
for the quarter ended March 31, 1998. We agree with the statements concerning
our Firm in such Form 10-Q except for the following clarification:
 
Reportable conditions should be defined in accordance with Statement of Auditing
Standards No. 60 ('SAS 60') as ' . . . matters coming to the auditor's attention
that, in his judgment, should be communicated . . . because they represent
significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control, which
could adversely affect the organization's ability to record, process, summarize,
and report financial data consistent with the assertion of management in the
financial statements.'
 
Additionally, SAS 60 and generally accepted accounting principles do not address
disclosure of reportable conditions in the financial statements, therefore, the
statement ' . . . none of which conditions were deemed material to the point of
requiring financial statement disclosure' is inapplicable. However, none of the
reportable conditions were believed to be material weaknesses under SAS 60,
which 'is a reportable condition in which the design or operation of one or more
of the internal control components does not reduce to a relatively low level the
risk that errors or irregularities in amounts that would be material in relation
to the financial statements being audited may occur and not be detected within a
timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned
functions.'
 
                                          Very truly yours,
                                          Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF
PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Carlos Frias, Chief Executive Officer of Freedom
Leaf Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended June 30, 2019 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: November 14, 2019 | By: | /s/ Carlos Frias                                                                                            
|----------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                        |     | Chief Executive Officer
                                                       (Principal Executive Officer)
# **Exhibit 31.1**

# **CERTIFICATION**

I, Jost Fischer, certifythat: 

1.                  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-Q of Sirona Dental Systems, Inc.;

2.                  Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

3.                  Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thereport;

4.                  The registrant’s other certifying officer andI are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

a)                designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

b)               evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

c)                disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

5.                  The registrant’s other certifying officer andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

a)                all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)               any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date:August 8, 2006 
|        |   | /S/ Jost Fischer                                 |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Chairman,  President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 35.1

SERVICING COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2013-4 for the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2015 (the Report), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the Servicer), does hereby certify and represent that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of July 17, 2013, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander Drive
Auto Receivables Trust 2013-4 and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (the Agreement) during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC./s/ Jennifer M. DavisName:

Jennifer M. DavisTitle:

Deputy Chief Financial OfficerDate:

March 29, 2016/s/ Rich MorrinName:

Rich MorrinTitle:

Chief Operating OfficerDate:

March 29, 2016
#### Shirley BARNES, Frances J. McElroy and Murrell Thomas, Appellees, v. Freeman (Teek) BOSLEY and Paula Carter, Appellants. Shirley BARNES, Frances J. McElroy, Appellants, and Murrell Thomas, v. Freeman (Teek) BOSLEY and Paula Carter, Appellees. Shirley BARNES, Frances J. McElroy and Murrell Thomas, Appellants, v. Freeman (Teek) BOSLEY and Paula Carter, Appellees.

Nos. 83-2127, 83-2178 and 83-2179.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

May 28, 1985.

Before HEANEY, BRIGHT and JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Following this Court’s opinion in *Barnes v. Bosley,*745 F.2d 501 (8th Cir.1984), attorneys for plaintiffs-appellees sought and were awarded attorneys’ fees of $10,050. Appellees’ attorneys return to this Court seeking fees and costs for successfully resisting appellants’ petition for certiorari. After careful review of the materials submitted in support of and in opposition to this motion, we award fees and costs of $4,250.25.

We have previously approved an hourly rate of $75.00 in this case, on which appel-lees’ attorneys base their request for fees. Careful consideration of submitted materials, however, suggests that successful re*491sistance to the certiorari petition might have been accomplished in approximately fifty hours. We do, however, award the total bill of costs claimed. Therefore, to reflect the efforts expended in opposing the certiorari petition in this case, we award appellees costs and fees totaling $4,250.25. *See Furtado v. Bishop,*635 F.2d 915, 924 (1st Cir.1980).
NO. 07-07 -037 9-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B OC TOBER1, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ MARCUS M OONEY DU NN, Appel lan t

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 24 2 n d DIS T RI CT COU RT OF HA L E CO UNT Y; NO. B16 635 -060 2; HON. ED SELF, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ ON M OT ION T O DISM ISS

_________

_________

_________

_______ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Appel lan t M arcus M ooney D unn, by

and throug h hi s attor ney , has filed a mot ion to dis mis s h is appeal bec ause he no lon g er desi re s to prosec ute i t. W it hout pass ing on t he meri ts of the c ase, we g ra nt t he moti on to di smi ss pursuantto Tex as Ru le o f Appel lat e Proced ure 42 .2(a) an d dismiss the app eal. Having dismissed the ap pea l at app ellant ’s
re q uest , no moti on for re hear ing w il l be enter tai ned, and our

mandate w il l is sue forthw it h.

Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice Do not p ubl is h.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 11108 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Damoni Owens,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15

- CR

- 37

- 1

Before **Jolly, Elrod,** and **Graves,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

Damoni Owens appeals his guilty plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Relying on National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius , 567 U.S. 519 (2012), Owens argues that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutio nal because it exceeds

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILE D June 22, 2021
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-11108 Document: 00515910457 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/22/2021No. 20

- 11108

2 Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause. He concedes that this argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Alcantar , 733 F.3d 143 (5th Cir. 2013). Citing Alcantar , the Government moves for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, for an extension of time in which to file a
merits brief.
The Government’s position is “clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case.” Groendyke Transp., Inc . v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969); see Alcantar , 733 F.3d at 145

- 46. Accordingly, the motion for summary
affirmance is **GRANTED** . The Government’s alternat ive motion for an
extension of time is **DENIED** as moot . The judgment is **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 20-11108 Document: 00515910457 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/22/2021
Exhibit 32.1

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

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Henry E.
Gemino, as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of Profile
Technologies, Inc., hereby certify that the Quarterly Report 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 the Quarterly Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of Profile Technologies, Inc.


Date:  May 13, 2005                          /s/ Henry E. Gemino
                                             -------------------
                                             Henry E. Gemino
                                             Chief Executive Officer and
                                             Chief Financial Officer