alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AJ. ROBBINS, P.C.

Certified Public Accountants

216 Sixteenth Street

Suite 600

Denver, Colorado 80202





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To The Board of Directors and Stockholders of
Universal Guardian Holdings, Inc.
Newport Beach, California

We consent to the inclusion and use in the Annual Report on form 10-KSB of Universal Guardian Holdings, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2004 of our report dated March 11, 2005 appearing in that Annual Report.

We further consent to the reference by incorporation of the aforesaid report in Universal Guardian Holdings, Inc. registration statements on form S-8 (333-113638 and 333-104741).

/s/ AJ. Robbins PC.



AJ. Robbins PC

Certified Public Accountants



Denver Colorado
April 14, 2005



F-1



---





F-2
NO. 07-09 -026 4-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL C NO VEM BER17, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ AR MA ND O BA RR ERA, J R. , Appel lan t

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 11 0 th DIS T RI CT COU RT OF DI CK EN S CO UNT Y; NO. 236 7; HON. W ILL IAM P. SMIT H, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ ON ABA TEMENT AND REMAN D

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. Arma ndo Barrera, Jr. (app ellant ) app eals from his conviction for dri vin g while int ox ic ated. He file d his noti ce of appeal on Aug ust7, 2009. The c ler k’ s record w as filed on Sep tember

1, 2009, and t he repor

ter ’s re cord on September 25, 2 009. Appel lan t’ s b ri ef
w as due on Oct ober

26, 2009. N eit her

a bri ef nor

a mot ion for e xtens ion w as filed by that date, how ev er
. On Nov ember 2, 2009, the cour

t s ent a l etter

to appel lan t not ify ing hi m that2

the b ri ef w as ov erdue and that it or res ponse w as due on Nov ember 12, 2009. To date , no br ief nor

an e xtens ion to file the b ri ef has be en fil ed. Conse quently, w e ab ate the ap pea l and rem and the c a u s e t o t he 1 10t h District Court (trial court) fo r fu rther pr o c e e d in gs. Upon rema nd, the trial court sha ll unde rtake th o se pro ce e d in gs n e ce ss a ry to de te rm in e th e fo llo wing: 1. w hether

appel lan t i s i ndi g ent; 2. w het her ap pellan t desires to prosecu te th e ap pea l; 3

. w hether appel lan t has been deni ed th e eff ect iv e ass is tanc e of couns el due t o appel lat e c ouns e l’s f ail ure to ti mely fil e an appel lat e br ief. See Evitts

v. Luc ey , 469 U .S. 387, 394, 105 S. C t. 830, 834- 35, 83 L . Ed.2 d 8 2 1, 82 8 (198 5) (holding thatan indigentdefend antis enti tl ed to the effect iv e assi sta nce of couns el on th e first appeal as of ri g ht an d tha t c ounse l must be av ail abl e to ass ist i n prepar ing and submi tti ng an a ppel lat e br ief) ; and , 4. w hy

appel lan t’ s a ppoi nted couns el has not c ompli ed w it h the previously

estab lished d ead lines. Shoul d the tr ial co urt find that appel lan t d e sir e s to pu rs ue th e appea l, i s i ndi g ent, and has been deni ed effectiv e assi sta nce of couns el, w e directit to appoi nt ne w co unsel for appe ll ant t o prosec ute t he appe al. An y and a ll orders i ss ued as a resul t of i ts proceed ing sh all be i ncl uded i n a s uppl emental cl er k’ s record and filed w it h thi s c our t on or before Decem ber 17 , 200 9. Sho uld ad dition al time be ne ede d to pe rform th ese ta sks, the t ri al cour

t may req uestsa me on or

before Dec ember

17, 2009. It is so ordered.

Per C ur iam Do not p ubl is h.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2753 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2753

 To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
   to provide Internet access to Regional Fishery Management Council 
         meetings and meeting records, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 1, 2011

  Mr. Jones introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
   to provide Internet access to Regional Fishery Management Council 
         meetings and meeting records, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fishery Management Transparency and 
Accountability Act''.

SEC. 2. INTERNET ACCESS TO REGIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL MEETINGS 
              AND MEETING RECORDS.

    Section 302(i)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1852(i)(2)) is amended by adding at the end 
the following:
            ``(G) Each Council shall make available on the Internet 
        website of the Council--
                    ``(i) a live broadcast of each meeting of the 
                Council, of the science and statistical committee of 
                the Council, and of the Council coordination committee 
                established under subsection (l), that is not closed in 
                accordance with paragraph (3); and
                    ``(ii) complete audio, complete video if the 
                meeting was in person or by video conference, and a 
                complete transcript of each such meeting--
                            ``(I) by not later than 30 days after the 
                        conclusion of the meeting; and
                            ``(II) for 3 years after the conclusion of 
                        the meeting.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2619 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2619

    To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to ensure that law 
enforcement personnel charged with security functions at Department of 
   Veterans Affairs medical centers receive active shooter training.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 21, 2011

Mr. Rooney (for himself and Mr. Deutch) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to ensure that law 
enforcement personnel charged with security functions at Department of 
   Veterans Affairs medical centers receive active shooter training.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans Affairs Active Shooter 
Training Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. ACTIVE SHOOTER TRAINING FOR PERSONNEL RESPONSIBLE FOR SECURITY 
              AT DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTERS.

    The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall establish policies and 
promulgate guidelines to ensure that law enforcement personnel charged 
with security functions at Department of Veterans Affairs medical 
centers receive active shooter training, as described in finding 4.3 of 
the Department of Defense document entitled ``Protecting the Force: 
Lessons from Fort Hood''.
                                 <all>
```
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2009-1411 MAKITA CORPORATION, MAKITA U.S.A., INC., and MAKITA CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC TOOL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in case no. 09-CV-133, Judge David 0. Carter.

ON MOTION 

### ORDER Upon Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation's unopposed motion for an extension of time, until November 30, 2009, to file its brief, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The motion is granted. FOR THE COURT 

## JUL 2 8 2009 /s/ Jan Horbalv Date Jan Horbaly Clerk

cc: James A. Olff, Esq. J. Donald Best, Esq. s19 USC T .HO E gu t FOR EP APCPEA IRCIS UIT JUL 2 8 2009 JAN nimble CLERK
Exhibit 10.1


 





SERVICE CONSULTATION CONTRACT


 


Party A: Shanghai Da Er Wei Trading Company Limited


 


Party B: Shanghai Shangyang Investment Management Consultation
Company Limited


 


This SERVICE CONSULTATION AGREEMENT is an
English translation to the “企业管理咨询合同,”
and is for reference purposes only.


 


In accordance to the Contract Law of the
People’s Republic of China, “中华人民共和国合同法,”
both parties entered into this Contract in its own accordance and in good faith.


 


		I.	Services



Party A engages Party B to provide consulting services
for Party A.


		II.	Service Period: December 1st, 2016 to February 28th, 2017



		III.	Party B shall provide the following consultation services for Party A:



		a.	Provide internal control procedure;



		b.	Provide financial control procedures;



		c.	Provide financial analysis report;



		d.	Provide investment advisory services;



		e.	Draft HR management procedures



		f.	Draft company management internal control procedures.



		IV.	Service Fee:



		a.	15,800,000 RMB



		b.	Party A must, within 30 days of the execution of this Contract, pay 6,800,000 RMB. The second installment in the amount of
6,000,000 RMB shall be paid on or before January 31st, 2017. The third installment, in the amount of 3,000,000 RMB,
shall be paid on or before February 28th, 2017.



		V.	Default



Any party that defaults on this Contract shall be
responsible for


		VI.	Jurisdiction



This Contract shall fall under the jurisdiction of
the People’s Republic of China. Each party will try to resolve any disagreements by themselves in good faith. If no resolution
can be achieved, then the court of law shall be in the People’s Republic of China.


		VII.	Execution



This Contract has two executed copies and each copy
is deemed enforceable by law. This Contract is effective when both Parties stamps their company chops.


 


Party A: Shanghai Da Er Wei Trading Company Limited


<COMPANY CHOP>


Date: December 1st, 2016


 


Party B: Shanghai Shangyang Investment Consultation Company
Limited


<Company Chop>


Date: December 1st, 2016
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 11
                       COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                      AS OF QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    For the Three month Period Ended
                                                 December 31, 1998    December 31, 1997
                                                 -----------------    -----------------
<S>                                                 <C>                  <C>        
Net income / (Loss)                                 $(5,723,383)         $   300,680

Weighted average shares outstanding                   2,208,432            2,189,918

Earning / (Loss) per shares outstanding             $     (2.59)         $      0.14

<CAPTION>
                                                     For the Nine month Period Ended
                                                 December 31, 1998    December 31, 1997
                                                 -----------------    -----------------
<S>                                                 <C>                  <C>        
Net income / (Loss)                                 $(5,212,120)         $   940,221

Weighted average shares outstanding                   2,203,690            2,185,376

Earning / (Loss) per shares outstanding             $     (2.37)         $      0.43
</TABLE>
#### PROVIDENT FUND SOC. v. WILLIAMS.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

March 13, 1895.)

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

A. M. Sanders, for appellant.

Carter, Hughes & Kellogg, for appellee.

No opinion. Dismissed, pursuant to the sixteenth rule.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 316 Engrossed in House (EH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 316

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
                   For the relief of Esther Karinge.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR ESTHER KARINGE.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Esther Karinge shall be 
eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 
to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon 
filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 
204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Esther Karinge enters the United 
States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), she 
shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if 
otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 
245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Esther Karinge, the Secretary 
of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the 
current or next following fiscal year, the total number of immigrant 
visas that are made available to natives of the country of the alien's 
birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, 
if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are made 
available to natives of the country of the alien's birth under section 
202(e) of such Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Esther 
Karinge shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any 
right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 4, 2012.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
112th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 316

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

                   For the relief of Esther Karinge.
```
Exhibit 10.21
                                                      For Immediate Release
                                                      February 13, 1998
                                                      Contact:
                                                      Ralph Dollander/ President
                                                      Claude Imbleau/ CFO
                                                      (704) 362-1115


                NDC AUTOMATION, INC. RECEIVES PURCHASE ORDER FOR
                    LASER GUIDED AGV SYSTEM FROM KMH SYSTEMS


         Charlotte, NC, February 13, 1998, NDC Automation, Inc. (OTC BULLETIN
BOARD SYMBOL - "AGVS") announces receipt of a purchase order exceeding $500,000
from KMH Systems ("KMH") of Cincinnati, Ohio. KMH is a major supplier of
material handling solutions, including conveyors, storage systems and system
integration to end users. KMH also supplies a broad range of lift trucks and
related components. The AGV system will be installed at a US facility of a
multinational paper manufacturing company. Revenue from the purchase order will
be recognized over the next 6 to 8 months.

         This project will utilize Lazerway(TM) laser guidance technology,
available only through the NDC Group and its partners. Lazerway(TM) for AGVs
provides flexibility and accuracy which the Company believes is superior to
other guidance technology on the market today.

         "NDCA is very pleased to receive this initial order from KMH Systems.
We anticipate this to be the first of many projects that are the result of a
relationship which began last year", said Mike Thornton, Vice President of Sales
for NDCA. "KMH already had a broad range of products and services which has now
been complemented by our AGVS experience and guidance technology. Both parties
should benefit from the combined contacts and capabilities brought to this
relationship".

         NDC Automation, Inc. provides an integrated package of hardware and
software control technology and related products to be incorporated into and
used to control Automatic Guided Vehicle Systems (AGVS). The Company guarantees
the full functionality of such AGVS systems because of its product integration.
Such generic controls are designed for their flexibility and are well suited for
a broad range of vehicle types. NDCA's sales are targeted to OEMs and system
integrators which buy products, solutions and engineering services from the
Company and incorporate them into their material handling systems for industries
in which they specialize.

         NDC's control technology is operating in over 7,000 vehicles worldwide,
1,000 of these laser guided, making NDC the leader in wire and non-wire AGVS
controls and guidance technology.


<PAGE>
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-4048

_____________________________

BERNARD CARRAFA,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

James Daniel, Judge.

June 11, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, WETHERELL, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee; Bernard Carrafa, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
NO. 07-09 -008 3-CV 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 C MA RC H 13, 2 009

_________

_________

_________

___ IN R E R OY

JO N, R ELATOR

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Relato r, Roy

Jo n, an inm ate p rocee ding p ro se a nd in forma p aup eris, seeks a wr it of m a n d amus t o c ompel the L ubboc k C ounty D is tr ict C ler k, Bar bara Suc sy , t o s er v e the defendan ts in caus e number 2009- 545,901 w it h c it ati on and compl ain t fil ed i n the 72nd Di str ict C our

t of Lubboc k C ounty
. He all eg es the d is tr ict c ler k mus t also i ss ue affidav it s and w ri tten ins tr uments su ch as “P lai nti ff ’s Aff ida v itof In F or mal [si c] Pauper is , c erti fied copy of tr ustfund st atement, Aff ida v itR ela ti ng to Ex haust ion of Admini strati v e Gr ievances Step 1 and Step 2, an d Affidav itR ela ti ng to Prev io u s Fil ed Lawsui t.” F or the follo w ing re asons , we deny

R ela tor ’s req uestand dis mis s h is peti ti on for w ant o f jur is dicti on.2

T his Court ha s the autho rity to i ssue w rits of ma nda mu s against a judge of a district or coun ty court in ou r district an d all wri ts nece ssaryt o enforce our jurisdiction. T ex. Gov 't Cod e Ann. § 22 .221( b) ( Ver non Su pp. 2 008)
. In order for a di str ict c ler k to fall w it hin our jurisdictiona l reach, it mu st be est ablishe d tha t the issua n c e o f t h e w rit of

man dam us is neces sar

y to enforc e o ur

j ur is dicti on. In r

e C or onado , 980 S.W .2d 6 91, 6 92- 93 (Te x .Ap p.– San Anto nio 1998 , no pet.). Relato r has no app eal pend ing in our Court; th us, he h as no t dem onst rated thatthe exercise of our ma nda mu s a uth oritya gainst the Lub bock Cou nty D is tr ict C ler k i s appropr iat e to enforc e our j ur is dicti on. Con seq uentl y , we hav e no a u t h o ri ty t o is s u e a wri to f m a n d a m u s a ga in s tB a rb a ra S u c s y. Addi ti onal ly, Re lat or

has fail ed to co mply

w it h the appl ic abl e r ule s o f proc edure. See T ex. R . App . P. 52 .3. Sp ecif ically , App ellanthas n o tin clude d an app end ix to his peti ti on for w ri t of mandamus c o n ta in ing ce rt ified or swor n c opi es of the doc uments he referen ces in his pet ition. T he fact th at Relat or is proceed ing pro se does n ot excuse him from co mply ing w it h r ule s o f p ro ce d u re . See Wheeler v. Gr een , 157 S.W .3d 4 39, 4 44 (Tex . 200 5) ; Holt v

. F.F. En ter

pr is es , 990 S.W .2d 756, 759 (Tex .App. –Amar il lo 1998, pet. den ied). Acc ordin g ly , t he pet it ion for w ri t of m andamus is di smi ss ed for w ant o f jur is dicti on. Pat rick A. Pirtle Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          28,549
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,505
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      11,320,073
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,195,801
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,352,879
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          772,504
<BONDS>                                      6,085,969
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,269,834
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,352,879
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,093,008
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  534,794
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             540,682
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (450,509)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (450,509)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (450,509)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (88.63)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
ACCEPTED

07-15-00114-CR

SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS

AMARILLO, TEXAS

8/6/2015 9:28:02 AM

Vivian Long, Clerk

 FILED IN 7th COURT OF APPEALS AMARILLO, TEXAS 8/6/2015 9:28:02 AM VIVIAN LONG CLERK