alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 10.8.2

TO: SHENZHEN NEPSTAR PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.

                                COMMITMENT LETTER

I, Tu Feng, as the shareholder of Shenzhen Nepstar Management Consulting Co.,
Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Nepstar Management Consulting"), hold 100%
equity of such company. On April 28, 2007, Nepstar Management Consulting,
Shenzhen Nepstar Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. ("Nepstar Pharmaceutical") and
Shenzhen Nepstar Information and Technology Service Co., Ltd. entered into
Shareholders Agreements ("Shareholders Agreements") to jointly and directly or
indirectly hold equity interests of the following companies: Shenzhen Nepstar
Chain Co., Ltd., Qingdao Nepstar Chain Co., Ltd., Guangzhou Nepstar Chain Co.,
Ltd., Jiangsu Nepstar Chain Co., Ltd., Shangdong Nepstar Chain Co., Ltd.,
Shanghai Nepstar Chain Co., Ltd., Sichuang Nepstar Chain Co., Ltd., Hangzhou
Nepstar Chain Co., Ltd., Ningbo Nepstar Chain Co., Ltd., Tianjin Nepstar Chain
Co., Ltd. and Dalian Nepstar Chain Co., Ltd. ("regional Nepstar companies").

Therefore, I hereby undertake that, during the terms of being a shareholder of
Nepstar Management Consulting, I will not directly or indirectly engage in any
business in competition with the businesses of Nepstar Pharmaceutical and/or the
regional Nepstar companies by investment, participation in operation or any
other ways (including acting as an owner, shareholder, partner, director,
manager, employee, advisor or consultant).

I hereby agree that this Commitment Letter be an annex to and a component part
of the aforesaid Shareholders Agreements regarding the regional Nepstar
companies having the same effect as the text of such Shareholders Agreements (in
case of any conflict, the text of such Shareholders Agreements shall prevail).
Any violation of mine against this Commitment Letter will be deemed as breach by
Nepstar Management Consulting and me. Nepstar Management Consulting and I will
be liable for such breach according to relevant agreements entered into with
Nepstar Pharmaceutical.

Representing and warranting as above.


                                        /s/ Tu Feng
                                        August 21, 2007


Agreed and Accepted by


/s/ Shenzhen Nepstar Management Consulting Co., Ltd.
Shenzhen Nepstar Management Consulting Co., Ltd.
August 21, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 27 (Thursday, February 8, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 9577]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3218]



[[Page 9577]]

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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Correction

    In the Federal Register notice published January 18, 2001 (66 FR 
4827) the reference to N. Abbe International, Inc. is corrected to 
read: ``H. Abbe International, Inc.''.

    Dated: February 2, 2001.
Bryant L. VanBrakle,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-3218 Filed 2-7-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
#### Ross W. ADAMS, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE; Nancy Adams, Trustee for Mattie Adams; Judy Clark, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 08-1045.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 22, 2008.

Decided: May 28, 2008.

Ross W. Adams, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Paul Bradford Taylor, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; James V. Parker, Jr., Parker Law Firm, PC, Hayesville, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ross W. Adams, Sr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Adams that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Adams failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. *United States v. Midgette,*478 F.3d 616, 621 (4th Cir.2007); *Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985); *see also Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 *225L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Adams has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Housing and Urban Development

          - [Docket No. FR-4652-N-18]

# AGENCY:

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.

# ACTION:

Announcement of OMB approval number. 

# SUMMARY:

The purpose of this notice is to announce the OMB approval number for the collection of information pertaining to the requirement for the consolidated public housing certificate of completion.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Arthur Methvin, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, Southwest, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0614, extension 4037. This is not a toll-free number.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In accordance  with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended), this notice advises that OMB has responded to the Department's request for approval of the information collection pertaining to the requirement for the consolidated  public housing certificate of completion. The approval number for this information collection is 2577-0046, which expires 10/31/2004.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Dated: December 18, 2001.

Michael Liu,

Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.

[FR Doc. 01-31882  Filed 12-27-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-33-M
Exhibit 32.1





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 Annual Report of Lithium Technology Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Theo M.M. Kremers, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated: April 8, 2010


/s/ Theo M.M. KremersTheo M.M. Kremers

Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED  BALANCE  SHEET AS OF MARCH 31, 1997,  AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
FOR THE PERIOD  ENDED  MARCH 31,  1997,  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1997
<CASH>                                            269
<SECURITIES>                                    8,221
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                8,490
<PP&E>                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 81,339
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             200
<BONDS>                                             0
<COMMON>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                     81,139
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   81,339
<SALES>                                         4,904
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                4,986
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  171
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 4,815
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             4,815
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    4,815
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       5.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0
        


</TABLE>
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

TIME AND DATE:

PLACE:

STATUS:

MATTERS TO BE
CONSIDERED:

CONTACT PERSON
FOR MORE INFO:

1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW
SUITE 520N
WASHINGTON, DC 20004

April 9, 2014

10:00 a.m., Thursday, April 24, 2014

The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004 (entry from
F Street entrance)

Open

The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open
session: Secretary of Labor v. McCoy Elkhorn Coal Corporation
and Jason Robinson, Docket Nos. KENT 2008-260, et al. (Issues
include whether the Administrative Law Judge erred in finding
high negligence, unwarrantable failure, a designation of
“significant and substantial” and individual liability with regard to
a violation for coal accumulations.)

Any person attending this meeting who requires special
accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language
interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those
needs. Subject to 29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

Jean Ellen = (202) 434-9950 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay /
1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
## NO. 12

- 23

- 00157

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

CONNIE L. BRADLEY A N D LUCAS WILLIAM BRADLEY

, APPELLANT

S

V.

JAMES DENNIS MENIKETTI, TRUSTEE OF THE VICTOR T. MENIKETTI AND DOROTHY D. MENIKETTI TRUST

, APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 173RD

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
This appeal i s being dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(b).
Appell ant s , Connie L. B radle y and Lucas William Br adley

, filed a notice of appeal on June 12

, 2023

. The clerk’s record w as filed on July 1 1

. On July 13

, we notif ied Appellants that the
appeal would be submitted on the clerk ’ s re cord alone for failure to request the rec ord , unless
proof of a written requ est for the r e cord was provided by July 24

. Appellants did not respond to

this Court ’ s notice or make written r e quest for th e recor d to the court reporter. On July 28, this

Court ordered that the case be submitted on the clerk ’ s rec ord alone. Appellants ’ brief was due

on or before August 28

. On August 29 , the Clerk of this Court n otified Appellants that the bri ef

was past due. W e fu rther notified Appellants that the appeal may be di smissed for want o f

pros ecution unless a motion for extension of time, containing a reasonable explanation for the

failure to fi le a brief and showing tha t Appellee ha d not suffered ma teria l injury t hereby , is f iled

no later than Septe m ber 8

.2

T he Septe m ber 8 deadline passed

, and Appellants have not file d a brief , a motion for

leave to file a late brief, or a motion for extension of time

. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal

for want of prosecution

. S ee T E X

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3( b ).

Opinion delivered October 6 , 2023

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.3 

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRI CT OF TE XAS

JUDGMENT

OCTOBER 6 , 2023

NO. 12

- 23

- 00157

- CV

CONNIE L. BRADLEY AND LUCAS WILLIAM BRADLEY , Appellant s V. JAMES DENNIS MENIKETTI, TRUSTEE OF THE VICTOR T. MENIKETTI AND DOROTHY D. MENIKETTI TRUST ,

Appellee

Appeal from the 173rd District Court

of Henderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. CV18

- 0407

- 392 )

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appel late record; and the same bei ng considered,
it is the opinion of this Cour t that this appeal should be dism issed for want of prosecution.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court th at the appeal be

, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of prosecution ; and that this decision be certified to

the court belo w for observance.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Wo rthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J

.
Exhibit 31.1

                                CERTIFICATION

I, George J. Taylor, Jr., Chief Executive Officer and President, certify
that:

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Farmstead
Telephone Group, Inc. ("registrant");

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) and 15d-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 fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonable 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 function):

      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.

Date: February 11, 2005

/s/ GEORGE J. TAYLOR, JR.
----------------------------------
George J. Taylor, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer, President
(until October 1, 2004)


<PAGE>
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

Nos. 02-1251/2115

___________

Dr. Genick Bar-Meir, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeals from the United States

* District Court for the

North American Die Casting * District of Minnesota.

Association, MN Chapter 16; Henry *

Bakemeyer; Larry Winkler, * [UNPUBLISHED] 

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: December 3, 2002

 Filed: December 19, 2002

___________

Before BOWMAN, BRIGHT, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Genick Bar-Meir filed this action against the North American Die Casting

Association (NADCA) MN Chapter 16; its Vice Chairman for Education, Larry

Winkler; and Henry Bakemeyer, a Wisconsin resident hired to teach NADCA

courses. He claimed they infringed his copyright of a book entitled “Fundamentals

of Die Casting Design” by selling materials for a course created by non-party
1

The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

2

The Honorable Arthur J. Boylan, United States Magistrate Judge for the

District of Minnesota.

-2-

NADCA. Bar-Meir appeals the district court’s1 grant of summary judgment for

defendants, all pretrial rulings,2

 and the award of costs and attorneys’ fees against

him.

We agree with the district court that the undisputed evidence shows defendants

never possessed the materials Bar-Meir claims were infringing, and thus defendants

could not be responsible for displaying or distributing the materials. See Sony Corp.

v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 433 (1984) (defining infringer of

copyright). Moreover, the course syllabus he alleges was derived from his book was

not substantially similar, and thus was not infringing. See Hartmann v. Hallmark

Cards, Inc., 833 F.2d 117, 120 (8th Cir. 1987) (test for substantial similarity). We

reject Bar-Meir’s contention that he was improperly denied an oral argument on the

summary judgment motion. See Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Cathey, 977 F.2d 447, 448-

49 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). We hold there was no abuse of discretion in any of

the discovery rulings, see SDI Operating P’ship v. Neuwirth, 973 F.2d 652, 655 (8th

Cir. 1992) (standard of review), or in denying Bar-Meir leave to file an amended

complaint, see Deutsche Fin. Servs. Corp. v. BCS Ins. Co., 299 F.3d 692, 700 (8th

Cir. 2002) (standard of review).

We also hold the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding

defendants their costs and attorneys’ fees, upon finding that the action was

objectively unreasonable and there was a need to deter future similar suits. See 17

U.S.C. § 505; Mary Ellen Enters., Inc. v. Camex, Inc., 68 F.3d 1065, 1072 (8th Cir.

1995) (standard of review; factors to consider in imposing costs and fees).
-3-

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   I,Grayling Hofer, Chief Accounting Officer and Principal Financial Officer of PowerCold Corporation (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:  1.  This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2.  The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Dated: August 1, 2006  /s/Grayling Hofer Grayling Hofer Chief Accounting Officer Principal Financial Officer
2014-0700.

#### Euclid City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2012-1042. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Board of Tax Appeals.

Upon consideration of the joint motion to remand to the Board of Tax Appeals to implement a settlement agreement, it is ordered by the court that the motion is granted, and the cause is remanded to the Board of Tax Appeals to take further action as appropriate.

It is further ordered that a mandate be sent to and filed with the Board of Tax Appeals.