alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Asia Leechdom Holding Corp.: Exhibit 10.5 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com











Exhibit 10.5



Sales Agreement of Baoding Huida Medicine Co, Ltd. 


Supplier: Baoding Huida Medicine Co., Ltd. 

Purchaser: Tianjin Boai Leechdom Technique Co., Ltd. 

	
 
	
	
 
	
	
 
	
	
 
	
Unit
	
	
 
	
	
 
	

	
 Article
	
	
Specification
	
	
Unit
	
	
Quantity
	
 Price
	
	
Amount
	
	
Note
	

	
Entire
	
	
 
	
	
 
	
	
 
	
 
	
	
20,000,000
	
	
 
	

	
Varieties
	
	
 
	
	
 
	
	
 
	
 
	
	
 
	
	
 
	

	
 
	
	
 
	
	
 
	
	
 
	
 
	
	
 
	
	
 
	

	
 
	
	
 
	
	
 
	
	
 
	
 
	
	
 
	
	
 
	

	
 
	
	
 
	
	
 
	
	
 
	
 
	
	
 
	
	
 
	

	
 
	
	
 
	
	
 
	
	
 
	
 
	
	
 
	
	
 
	

	
Total Amount: RMB Two Hundred Million
	
	
    ¥20,000,000
    





1. Place of Delivery:  Warehouse of the Acquirer 

 2. Freight Payer:  the Supplier 

 3. Quality Requirements:  Should Comply with Relevant National Standards


 4. Settlement Form:  a√. Banks Draft; b. Wire Transfer; c. Bank Acceptance; d. Cash


5. Time for Payment:  Reconsideration 

 6. Contract Dispute: If any
dispute occurs, the Supplier and the Acquire should resolve the dispute through consultation, when no results come to the end, the dispute would be applied to a arbitral authority in the Supplier’s area for arbitration.


7. The Agreement shall be kept by both the Supplier and the Acquirer for ___ pieces. It would be effective immediately by signatures and seals after legal identities of the entrusted agents are confirmed by the Parties. The attachments to this
agreement are legally of equal effect as this origin agreement.YY 



	
 	
 
	
Supplier (Seal):
	
	
Purchaser (Seal):
	

	
Special Contract Seal of Baoding Huida
Medicine Co., Ltd.
	
	
Special Contract Seal of Tianjin
Boai
Leechdom Technique Co., Ltd.
	

	
 
	
 

	
Company Name:
	
	
Company Name:
	

	
Baoding Huida Medicine Co., Ltd.
	
	
 
	

	
 
	
	
 
	

	
Company Address:
	
	
Company Address:
	

	
Houying No. 2362, Great Wall North
Street, Baoding
	
	
 
	

	
 
	
 
	

	
Legal Representative:
	
	
Legal Representative:
	

	
 
	
	
 
	

	
Entrusted Agent:
	
	
Entrusted Agent:
	

	
 
	
	
 
	

	
Telephone: 0312-5970086
	
	
Telephone:
	
















	
Opening Bank:
	
	
Opening Bank:
	

	
Bank of China, Beicheng Subbranch
	
	
 
	

	
Account No.: 37417872908091001
	
	
Account No.:
	

	
Tax No.: 13060379419984X
	
	
Tax No.:
	

	
Post Code: 071000
	
	
Post Code:
	




Date of the Agreement: Jan. 7, 2010
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2739 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend for one year the 

increased deduction for start-up expenditures. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 1, 2011 

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

for one year the increased deduction for start-up expenditures. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Jump Start American 

5 Small Business Innovation Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF INCREASED DEDUCTION FOR 

7 START-UP EXPENDITURES. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (3) of section 195(b) 

9 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2739 IH

1 (1) in the text by striking ‘‘2010’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘2010 or 2011’’, and 

3 (2) in the heading by striking ‘‘2010’’ and in4 serting ‘‘2010 OR 2011’’. 

5 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

6 this section shall apply to amounts paid or incurred in tax7 able years beginning after December 31, 2010. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 15.1  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM  To LUXOTTICA GROUP S.p.A.  We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos. 333-171011, 333-147724, 333-14006 and 333-9546 on Form S-8 of our reports dated April 19, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Luxottica Group S.p.A. and the effectiveness of Luxottica Group S.p.A.s internal control over financial reporting (each of which reports expresses an unqualified opinion and one of which report includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Companys adoption of accounting guidance of revisions to IAS 1 and IAS 19, both effective January 1, 2009), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Luxottica Group S.p.A. for the year ended December 31, 2010.  /s/ Deloitte & Touche S.p.A.  Milan, Italy April 28, 2011
* 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. 96-30856 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RON CHRISTOPHER GREEN, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CR-7 B

- - - - - - - - - - June 4, 1997 Before SMITH, DUHE’ and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ron Christopher Green appeals his sentence which was imposed after he pleaded guilty to distribution of cocaine base. He argues that the Government had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the substance involved was in fact “crack” cocaine. Green fails to show that court’s sentence was clearly erroneous. United States v. Jackson , 22 F.3d 583, 584 (5th Cir. 1994). He also argues that the district court erred when it departed fromNo. 96-30856 - 2 - the Sentencing Guidelines by reducing his base offense level by one point, not two points. United States v. Alvarez , 51 F.3d 36, 39 (5th Cir. 1995). We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record and AFFIRM.
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00495

- CR

GERALD L. BRADLEY APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------
FROM CRIMINAL DISTRI CT COURT NO. 2 OF TA RRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 0918 827D

---------- 

### MEMORANDU M OPINION 1

---------- On December 3, 2014, Appellant Gerald L. Bradley filed a notice of appeal
from the trial court’s August 21, 2014 orders denying his “ Motion of Request to

Reverse Conviction for Improper Grand Jury Procedures ” and his “Motion to

Show

- C ause Order.” On December 18, 2014 , we notified Bradley that it appears
we lack jurisdiction over this matter because the notice of appeal was not timely

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

filed

. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a). We advised that this appeal could be
dismissed unless he, or any party desiring to continue the appeal, filed a
response showing grounds for continuing the appeal on or before December 29
,
2014. Bradley filed a response, but it does not show grounds for continuing the
appeal.
This court does not have authority to gra nt an out

- of

- time appeal. See

Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Additionally
, unless expressly authorized by statute, appellate courts have jurisdiction to

review only final judgments of conviction in criminal cases

. Apolinar v . State , 820
S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art.

44.02 ( W est 2006) (“A defendant in any criminal action has the right of appeal
under the rules hereinafter prescribed

. . . . ”). This court does not have
jurisdiction to review the denial of Bradley’s post

- judgment motions. 2
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P.
43.2(f)

.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.

2 On January 29, 2015, we received a pro se letter from Bradley. We interpret his letter as a motion requesting that this court appoint counsel for him and order the trial court to provide him a record and ma ke certain findings and conclusions. Because we determine that we lack jurisidiction, we deny Bradley’s motion.3

DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERE D: February 5, 2015
## ELECTRONIC RECORD 

# SIS-/5" 57«-/5"
COA #14-14-00521-CR 

### STYLE:Gary Ishmael Bolin vThe State ofTexas COA DISPOSITION: Affirmed 

### DATE: March 19, 2015 Publish: No OFFENSE: Aggravated Assault COUNTY: Harris th TRIAL COURT: 209"' District Court TC CASE #: 1377493

IN THE COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS 

### STYLE: Gary Ishmael Bolin vThe State ofTexas 

### CCA# 

# APPBLL/tHT'S Petition FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: DATE: 

# ot/tw/r JUDGE: 

# A (M UMS^. CCA Disposition: DATE: JUDGE: SIGNED: PUBLISH: PC: DNP:

FOR REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: MOTION FOR
ELECTRONIC RECORD
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
              ---------------------------------------------------



Vitafort International Corporation
Los Angeles, California



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on 
Form S-8 No. 33-300435, No. 33-307989, No. 33-317763, No. 33-331479 and 
No. 33-335067 of Vitafort International Corporation of our report dated 
March 30, 1998 relating to the consolidated balance sheet of Vitafort 
International Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997, and the 
related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity (deficit), 
and cash flows for the year then ended, which report appears in the December 31,
1997, annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Vitafort International Corporation and 
Subsidiaries.




                                               BDO Seidman, LLP

Los Angeles, California
August 14, 1998
#### Tajinderpal SINGH, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-71606.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 10, 2008.*

Filed June 17, 2008.

*640Christopher J. Stender, Stender *&*Pope, PC, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.

Thomas Fatouros, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: REINHARDT, BERZON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Tajinderpal Singh, also known as Jaspal Singh Garch, petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) February 28, 2006 decision denying his motion to reopen to apply for relief under the Convention Under Torture (“CAT”).

We review the BIA’s ruling on a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. *Perez v. Mukasey,*516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008).

The final order of removal was entered by the BIA on December 3, 1993. Petitioner had until June 21, 1999 to move for reopening in order to apply for CAT relief. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(b)(2)®. Because petitioner did not file his motion to reopen until September 13, 2004, more than five years after the deadline, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to reopen as untimely.

Accordingly, respondent’s motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument.

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20 22

- 4 007

_____________________________
M ELISSA and C HARLES H ARCUS , Appellant s ,

v.

F LORIDA D EPARTMENT OF C HILDREN AND F AMILIES , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Angela C. Dempsey , Judge

. February 1, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , W INOKUR , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Marie A. Mattox and Ashley N. Richardson of Marie A. Mattox, P.A., Tallahassee
, for Appellant s

. Andrew McGinley, General Counsel, Department of Children and Families, Tallahassee; Miriam R. Coles of Henry Buchanan, P.A., Tallahassee
, for Appell ee

.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GUMESINDO ARANZAZU-GARCIA,

a.k.a. Gumecindo Aranzuza, a.k.a.

Gumesindo Garcia, a.k.a. Gumesindo

Garcia Aranzuza,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-72718

Agency No. A017-264-686

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 15, 2011** 

 

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

FILED

MAR 07 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-72718

Gumesindo Aranzazu-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8

U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d

1037, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc), and we deny the petition for review.

The IJ properly determined that Aranzazu-Garcia’s conviction for violating

Cal. Penal Code § 243.4(a), for which he was sentenced to at least one year

imprisonment, constituted an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F). 

See Lisbey v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 930, 933-34 (9th Cir. 2005). Aranzazu-Garcia is

therefore removable as an aggravated felon, see 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), and

statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3).

In light of our disposition, we need not reach Aranzazu-Garcia’s remaining

contention.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43048-43049]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19405]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice: 17-061]


International Space Station Advisory Committee; Charter Renewal

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Notice of renewal of charter of the International Space Station 
Advisory Committee.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to sections 14(b)(1) and 9(c) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, and after consultation

[[Page 43049]]

with the Committee Management Secretariat, U.S. General Services 
Administration, the NASA Acting Administrator has determined that 
renewal of the International Space Station Advisory Committee is in the 
public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on 
NASA by law. The renewed charter is for a one-year period ending on 
September 30, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Patrick Finley, Designated Federal 
Officer, Office of International and Interagency Relations, NASA 
Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546; phone (202) 358-5684; email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aadacbded8c3c9c184de84ccc3c4c6cfd3eac4cbd9cb84cdc5dc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="017160757368626a2f752f67686f6d6478416f6072602f666e77">[email protected]</span></a>.

Patricia D. Rausch,
Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2017-19405 Filed 9-12-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7510-13-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-40823

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Erik Duran-Pinon, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:20-CR-804-1

Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Erik DuranPinon has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Duran-Pinon has not filed a response. We have 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 3, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-40823 Document: 00516003099 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/03/2021
No. 20-40823

2

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for 

leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. 

R. 42.2.

Case: 20-40823 Document: 00516003099 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/03/2021
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 16

- 00317

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF I .D., MINOR

CHILD

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

FROM THE 233RD DISTR ICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 233

- 562379

- 14

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGME NT

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

We have considered appellant ’ s “Motion to Dismiss.” It is the court’s

opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant, f or which let execution

issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, GABRIEL, and SUDDERTH, JJ.

DELIVERED: October 13, 2016

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
<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 September 30, 2006 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: November 13, 2006                   By:  S/ DAVID A. WIDLAK
                                                 ------------------
                                           David A. Widlak;
                                           President and CEO
                                           (Principal Executive Officer)

Dated: November 13, 2006                   By:  S/ RAY T. COLONIUS
                                                 ------------------
                                           Ray T. Colonius;
                                           Treasurer
                                           (Principal Financial and Accounting
                                           Officer)

                                       37
Exhibit 31.1

I, Michael C. Mauer, Chief Executive Officer of CM Finance Inc certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of CM Finance Inc;

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)) 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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; 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 (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(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.

Dated this 6th day of September 2017.



|    |  |                                         
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/    Michael C.
Mauer                 
|    |  | Michael C. Mauer
Chief Executive Officer