alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2440

Solariver:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
ex10-01.htm


Exhibit 10.01


 


TEARLAB CORPORATION



 


CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF THE


 


AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION


 


TearLab Corporation (the “Corporation”), a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the “DGCL”), does hereby certify:







1.             The name of the Corporation is TearLab Corporation.







2.             The original Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation was filed with the Office of the Secretary of State of Delaware on June 5, 2002 under the name Vascular Sciences Corporation.


 


3.             Pursuant to Section 242 of the DGCL, this Certificate of Amendment of the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation amends the provisions of the Corporation’s Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation.


 


4.             The amendment to the existing Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation being effected hereby is to delete the first paragraph of Article IV in its entirety and to substitute in its place the following:



	 





 


The Corporation is authorized to issue two classes of stock to be designated, respectively, “Common Stock” and “Preferred Stock.” The total number of shares of all classes of capital stock which the Corporation shall have authority to issue is seventy-five million (75,000,000), of which sixty-five million (65,000,000) shares, par value $0.001 per share, shall be common stock (the “Common Stock”) and ten million (10,000,000) shares, par value $0.001 per share, shall be preferred stock (the “Preferred Stock”).



	 





 


5.             This Certificate of Amendment of the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation was approved by written consent of the board of directors and by the stockholders of this Corporation at a meeting thereof duly called and held on June 30, 2011.







6.             This Certificate of Amendment of the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation shall be effective immediately upon filing by the Delaware Secretary of State.


 


 













 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Certificate of Amendment of Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation has been duly executed by an authorized officer of the Corporation on July __, 2011.


 



	  	 	
By:                                                                                                                                        


	  	 	  
	  	 	
Print Name:                                                                                                                          


	  	 	  
	  	 	
Title:
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4032 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4032

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 120 East Oak Avenue in Seminole, Oklahoma, as the ``Sergeant Bret D. 
               Isenhower Memorial Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 7, 2022

  Mr. Lankford (for himself and Mr. Inhofe) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 120 East Oak Avenue in Seminole, Oklahoma, as the ``Sergeant Bret D. 
               Isenhower Memorial Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. SERGEANT BRET D. ISENHOWER MEMORIAL POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 120 East Oak Avenue in Seminole, Oklahoma, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Sergeant Bret D. Isenhower Memorial Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Sergeant 
Bret D. Isenhower Memorial Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
#### A. S. GRADY, Receiver of FARMERS AND MERCHANTS BANK OF MOUNT OLIVE, v. S. L. WARREN et al.

(Filed 20 April, 1932.)

Pleadings E a — Where action is dismissed for misjoinder of parties and causes the court has no jurisdiction to allow amendment.

Where an action has been dismissed for misjoinder of parties and causes the action is not pending and the court has no power to allow a motion to amend the pleadings under the provisions of O. S., 515.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Harris, J.,*at February Term, 1932, of WayNe.

Affirmed. .

*639*Teague & Tees, J. -Faison Thomson and Kenneth G. Royall for appellant.*

*Langston, Allen & Taylor, Dickinson & Freeman and R. D. Johnson for appellees.*

Adams, J.

Tbe plaintiff filed bis complaint in an action entitled as above, to wbicb tbe defendants demurred. For misjoinder of parties and causes of action Judge Cowper sustained tbe demurrer and dismissed tbe action. On appeal tbe judgment was affirmed, tbis Court observing tbat tbe act of 1931 amending C. S., 456 (Pub. Laws 1931, cbap. 334, sec. 2), applies only wben tbe plaintiff is in doubt as to tbe persons from whom be is entitled to redress on bis cause of action. *Grady v. Warren,*201 N. C., 693.

Wben tbe demurrer was sustained for misjoinder of parties and causes tbe action was dismissed. *Bank v. Angelo,*193 N. C., 576; *Harrison v. Transit Co.,*192 N. C., 545; *Robinson v. Williams,*189 N. C., 256.

Witbin ten days after tbe receipt of tbe certificate of tbe Supreme Court tbe plaintiff moved on three days’ notice for leave to amend tbe complaint by striking out all allegations relating to tbe Citizens Bank and by striking out tbe Citizens Bank as a party defendant. Judge Harris properly denied tbe motion as a matter of law.

Tbe right to amend tbe complaint upon three days notice under 0. S., 515, wben a demurrer is sustained, has no application to cases in wbicb tbe action has been dismissed for misjoinder of parties and causes. In such event tbe action is not pending and tbe court is without jurisdiction to allow tbe amendment. Judgment

Affirmed. .
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2966

Price Pump Company:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-14575

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:11-cr-00121-JES-SPC-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

STEPHEN KOZAK, 

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(November 19, 2013)

Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Donna Lee Elm, appointed counsel for Stephen Kozak in this direct criminal 

Case: 12-14575 Date Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 1 of 2 
2

appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and 

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 

L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that 

counsel=s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because 

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, 

counsel=s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Kozak’s convictions and 

sentences are AFFIRMED.

Case: 12-14575 Date Filed: 11/19/2013 Page: 2 of 2
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-2914

National Presto Industries, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. §1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | 1. | 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. |
|--|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                                                                          |                                       |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|        |                                                                               | /s/                    W. Bruce Comer |
|   | W.                    Bruce Comer                                             |
|   | Chief                    Executive Officer April                      6, 2007 |

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0127 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER ROBIN LEDEAU,

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 October 2, 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

August 24 2023

08/24/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0127
SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

MITCHELL RUBINSON; AND ROMAN 

JONES, 

Appellants, 

vs. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION, 

Respondent. 

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE 

No. 66317 

FILED 

FEB 2 6 2016 

TRACE K. LINDEMAN 

CLERK QF SuPREME COURT 

BY 

DEPUTY CLERK 

This is an appeal from a district court order denying a petition 

for judicial review in a tax matter. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark 

County; Jessie Elizabeth Walsh, Judge. 

An administrative law judge found appellants Mitchell 

Rubinson and Roman Jones to be responsible persons under NRS 360.297 

who willfully failed to pay for Prive Las Vegas, LLC's unpaid taxes. 

Rubinson and Jones appealed to the Nevada Tax Commission, which 

affirmed the administrative law judge's decision. 

Rubinson and Jones subsequently filed a petition for judicial 

review with the district court. Respondent State of Nevada, Department 

of Taxation (Department), filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the 

district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition because Rubinson 

and Jones had failed to comply with the requirements of NRS 360.395. 

The district court granted the Department's motion. Rubinson and Jones 

raise the following issues on appeal: (1) whether the district court erred in 

requiring Rubinson and Jones to comply with NRS 360.395 as a condition 

for appealing the final administrative determination of the Nevada Tax 

Commission to the district court; and (2) whether the repayment 

requirement prior to• litigating, pursuant to NRS 360.395, violates 

(0) I947A 
Rubinson's and Jones's right to due process and equal protection under the 

United States and Nevada Constitutions. 

Rubinson and Jones have conceded that they are subject to the 

requirements of NRS 360.395 

At the hearing regarding respondent's motion to dismiss, on 

July 8, 2014, counsel for Rubinson and Jones conceded that his clients did 

not have a right to move forward with a petition for judicial review 

because they had not paid the taxes owed or entered into an agreement 

with the Department. He further stated that 143 what I would invite the 

Court to do is to grant the motion to dismiss and to disallow the petition 

for judicial review." 

Rubinson and Jones have made no effort to meet the 

requirements of the statute. Accordingly, it appears that this concession 

is dispositive of the issues on appeal. 

Therefore, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.' 

HaleraCtiC i J. 

Saittao 

J. 

Pickering 

'As the constitutional issues raised on appeal by Rubinson and 

Jones were not raised below and were not considered by the district court, 

we need not address them. Munoz v. State ex rel. Dep't of Highways, 92 

Nev. 441, 444, 552 P.2d 42, 43-44 (1976). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A en 
cc: Hon. Jessie Elizabeth Walsh, District Judge 

Salvatore C. Gugino, Settlement Judge 

Jason G. Landess, Ltd. 

Attorney General/Las Vegas 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) I94Th 41:13*
ex45.htm




Exhibit 4.5







FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE







CIMETRIX INCORPORATED







2006 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN












THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CIMETRIX INCORPORATED 2006 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN (this “Amendment”) is made and adopted effective as of the 21st day of May, 2011, by Cimetrix Incorporated.







WHEREAS, Cimetrix Incorporated (the “Company”) maintains the Cimetrix Incorporated 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) for the benefit of its employees and the employees of its participating subsidiaries; and







WHEREAS, it is necessary and desirable to amend the Plan to increase the number of shares authorized for grant under the Plan; and







WHEREAS, the Company, acting through its Board of Directors (the “Board”), has reserved the right to amend the Plan at any time and from time to time; and







WHEREAS, the Board has approved and adopted this Amendment.







NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:







1.           Section 3.1(a) of the Plan is amended effective May 21, 2011 to read as follows:







“Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 12.2, a combined total of 9,250,000 Shares are authorized for grant under the Plan and Prior Plans.  Any Shares that are subject to Awards under this Plan or which have been or are in the future issued pursuant to options or awards previously granted under the Prior Plans shall be counted against the 9,250,000 Share limit.  Consequently, subject to adjustment as provided in Section 12.2, the total number of Shares that may be issued under this Plan and the Prior Plans shall not exceed 9,250,000.”







2.           Section 5.7 of the Plan is amended effective May 21, 2011 to read as follows:







“The Committee may grant Options intended to qualify as “incentive stock options” as defined in Section 422 of the Code, to any employee of the Company or any Subsidiary, subject to the requirements of Section 422 of the Code.  Solely for the purposes of determining whether Shares are available for the grant of “incentive stock options” under the Plan, the maximum aggregate number of Shares with respect to which “incentive stock options” may be issued under the Plan shall be 9,250,000 Shares, less any Shares issued under the Prior Plans, and subject to adjustment as provided in Section 12.2.”







Except as provided above, the originals terms of the Plan are hereby ratified and confirmed in all respects.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer effective as of the date first above written.














	 	 
CIMETRIX INCORPORATED


	 	 	 
	
 

	By: 	 
/s/ Robert H. Reback                                                  


	 	Name: 	Robert H. Reback
	 	Title:	President
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 17, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-2862

Curtis Instruments, Puerto Rico, Inc: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
#### STATE v. MELVIN DEAN PICKARD

(Filed 11 December, 1957)

Appeal by defendant from *Sink, E., J.,*at March 18, 1957, Criminal Term of Durham.

Criminal prosecution upon warrant issued out of Recorder’s Court in city of Durham charging that Melvin Dean Pickard on or about 13th day of January, 1957, within Durham County, did willfully, maliciously and unlawfully drive a motorcycle on the public streets of the city or on the public highways of the county, at a greater rate of speed than allowed by law “100 MPH Duke Homestead Rd.” etc.

In the Recorder’s Court defendant was adjudged guilty, and fined, from which he appealed to Superior Court, wherein the jury returned a verdict of guilty. Whereupon the court ordered (1) that defendant be confined in the common jail of Durham County for a period of sixty days to be assigned to work the public roads under the direction of the State Highway and Public Works Commission, and (2) that he pay a fine of $100.00 plus cost of the court.

Defendant appeals therefrom to Supreme Court, and assigns error.

*Attorney General Patton, Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Wooten, Jr. for the State.*

*Arthur Vann for defendant appellant.*

Per Curiam.

Careful consideration of the record and case on appeal in the light of each and all of the twenty-four assignments of error presented on the appeal fails to reveal error prejudicial to defendant. The evidence is brief, and the charge clear and explicit.

Hence in the judgment from which appeal is taken there is

No error.