alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment 2 to Employment Agreement - Sean M. Stack



 Exhibit 10.5.1 
 Amendment 2 of Employment Agreement 
 Mr. Sean M. Stack (the
“Executive”) and Aleris International, Inc. (the “Company”) and for certain purposes Aleris Corporation (the “Parent”) formerly Aleris Holding Company entered into an agreement dated June 1, 2010 as amended by a
letter dated April 5, 2011. 
 The Executive, Company and Parent desire to amend the Agreement effective immediately prior to
the effectiveness of the 2011 initial public offering of Parent as follows: 
 1. Clause (ii) of the first sentence of Section 3
is amended by replacing the words “six (6) months” with “thirty (30) days”. 
 2. The last sentences of
Sections 5(a)(ii) and (d) shall be amended to add at the end thereof the following: 
 ;provided, further, however,
notwithstanding the foregoing, if termination of employment is in anticipation of or within twelve (12) months following a Change of Control (as defined in the Aleris Corporation 2011 Equity Incentive Plan), the Severance Payment will be paid in a
cash lump sum within thirty (30) days following the Date of Termination, to the extent permissible under the rules regarding a “short term deferral” within the meaning of Treasury Regulations Section 1.409A-1(b)(4) of the Code and
“separation pay plans” within the meaning of Treasury Regulations Section 1.409A-1(b)(9) of the Code or otherwise not subject Executive to taxes under Section 409A of the Code. For purposes of the foregoing, a termination of employment
will be deemed to be “in anticipation of” a Change of Control if such termination is for the principal purpose of avoiding or evading the Company’s or Parent’s compensation obligations that would arise upon a termination
following a Change of Control.” 
 3. Section 5(d) is amended by replacing the words “twelve (12)” with
“eighteen (18)” in the two places it appears and to add after “(ii)” the following “the product of (x) one and one-half times (y)”. 
 4. Except as expressly amended by this letter agreement, the Agreement shall otherwise continue in full force and effect. 
 8172602.1 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written
above. 
  

	
	Executive
	
	  
	Sean M. Stack
	
	Aleris International, Inc.
	
	  

	By: Christopher R. Clegg
	Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary
	
	Aleris Corporation
	
	  

	By: Christopher R. Clegg
	Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary


 8172602.1 

  
 2
Organization Name:

Note: Representatives submitting on behalf of an organization must enter information below.

Requestor Representative:

Section 301 Investigation: China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology 

Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation - Form to Request Exclusion of Product

When submitting a product exclusion request using this form, enter the specified 

information in the following fields and explain the basis and rationale for your statements. 

By completing this form, you certify that the information provided is complete and 

correct to the best of your knowledge. 

1. Indicate whether the comment contains business confidential information (BCI), is a public

document, or is a public version of a BCI document.

3.

2. Please provide a complete and detailed description of the product of concern:

4.

5. Requestor's relationship to the product:

CONTINUED BELOW

*

10-digit HTSUS item number* for product you wish to address in this product exclusion request:

Use numerical characters only with no special characters (example: 1023456789). For help in finding 

the HTSUS item number associated with your product, see https://hts.usitc.gov/

1

7.

6. Does this submission in regulations.gov include additional attachments?

Please indicate whether any additional attachment contains business confidential

information (BCI), is a public document, or is a public version of a BCI document.

VERSION 1

Requestor Information

Requestor Name (Last, First):

Public Version of BCI

RCH123, 13.8 ton Capacity, 3.00 in Stroke, Single-Acting, Hollow Plunger Hydraulic Cylinder; 

Maximum Operating Pressure psi: 10000; Weight Kgs: 4,4; Oil Capacity Advance cm3: 136; Stroke 

Ranges mm: 48 - 94

8412210075 Schmidt, Jackie Enerpac Jackie SchmidtImporter Yes Contains BCI
END 2

8. Is this product, or a comparable product, available from sources in the United States?:

VERSION 1

11. Please provide information in support your request, taking account of the instructions

provided in Section B of the Federal Register notice (note: text entered below can extend

beyond the apparent size of this box).

9. Is this product, or a comparable product, available from sources in third countries?:

10. Please provide the value and quantity (with units) of the Chinese-origin product of concern

that you purchased for each calendar year specified. Limit this figure to the products

purchased by your firm (or by members of your trade association) alone. Please provide 

estimates if precise figures are unavailable.

2016 Value:

2015 Value:

2017 Value:

2016 Quantity:

2015 Quantity:

2017 Quantity:

No No BCI BCI BCI BCI BCI BCI

See addendum for additional information.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 13, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3747

Omega Environmental Technologies, 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 concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

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
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 21, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14964-14965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6892]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging a Final Judgment by Consent Pursuant to the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act 
(CERCLA)

    Notice is hereby given that on March 2, 1995, a proposed consent 
decree in United States v. Scovill, Inc., Civ. A. No. 3:95CV159, was 
lodged with the United States District Court for the Eastern District 
of Virginia. The complaint in this action seeks recovery of costs and 
injunctive relief under Sections 106 and 107(a) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (``CERCLA''), as 
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, 
Pub. L. 99-499, 42 U.S.C. 9606, 9607(a). This action involves the 
Arrowhead Plating Superfund Site located in Montross, Westmoreland 
County, Virginia.
    Under the proposed Consent Decree, Scovill, Inc. will pay 
$339,811,48 to reimburse the Superfund for costs incurred by the United 
States in performing certain response actions at the Arrowhead Plating 
Superfund Site. The Decree also requires Scovill, Inc. to perform the 
remedial action for the Site selected in the September 30, 1991 Record 
of Decision issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency 
(``EPA''). The Decree reserves the right of the United States to 
recover future response costs and seek further injunctive relief 
against the settling defendants for conditions at the Site that are not 
known by the United States at the time of entry of this decree.
    The Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the 
proposed consent decree for a period of thirty days from the date of 
publication of this notice. Comments should be addressed to the 
Assistant Attorney General of the Environment and Natural Resources 
Division, Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station, 
Washington, DC 20044, and should refer to United States v. Scovill, 
Inc., DOJ Reference No. 90-11-3-859.
    The proposed consent decree may be examined at the Office of the 
United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk 
Division, 101 W. Main Street, Suite 8000, Norfolk, Va. 23510; Region 
III Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, 841 Chestnut Street, 
Philadelphia, Pa.; and at the Consent Decree Library, 1120 ``G'' 
Street, NW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 624-0892. A copy of 
the proposed decree may be obtained in person or by mail from the 
Consent Decree Library at the address listed above. In requesting a 
copy, please refer [[Page 14965]] to the referenced case number, and 
enclose a check in the amount of $23.25 (25 cents per page reproduction 
costs), payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Joel M. Gross,
Acting Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment 
and Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 95-6892 Filed 3-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
```
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2781

Speck Pumps-Pool Products, 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/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions.

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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANICIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF EASTERN AMERICAN NATURAL GAS TRUST AS OF AND
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,522
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,162,576
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,164,098
<PP&E>                                      93,162,180
<DEPRECIATION>                              40,074,901
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              55,087,803
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,164,098
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  53,087,803
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                55,251,901
<SALES>                                      9,678,628
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,678,628
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,626,108
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (6,030)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              8,561,984
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          8,058,550
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                503,434
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,561,984
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.45


</TABLE>
1 Judge Alvin B. Rubin was a member of the original panel which

heard this case but he died on June 11, 1991. This matter is being

handled by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). 

2 Mississippi Et Al v. Louisiana Et Al, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S. Ct.

542 (1992).

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 90-1031

_____________________________________

JULIA DONELSON HOUSTON, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

VERSUS

RUTH M. THOMAS, ET AL., 

Defendants,

STATE OF LOUISIANA and LAKE PROVIDENCE PORT COMMISSION,

 Intervening Defendants-Appellants.

______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

______________________________________________________

ON REMAND FROM THE THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

(February 12, 1993)

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judge1.

PER CURIAM:

As directed by the Supreme Court2, this matter is remanded to

the district court which shall dismiss the claims of Louisiana

against Mississippi for lack of jurisdiction, and which shall

proceed to determine the claims of the private litigants. 

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 53 (Monday, March 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14753-14754]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6803]



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


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Notice of Issuance of Proposed Decision and Order; Week of 
January 16 Through January 20, 1995

    During the week of January 16 through January 20, 1995, the 
proposed decision and order summarized below was issued by the Office 
of Hearings and Appeals of the Department of Energy with regard to an 
application for exception.
    Under the procedural regulations that apply to exception 
proceedings (10 CFR Part 205, Subpart D), any person who 
[[Page 14754]] will be aggrieved by the issuance of a proposed decision 
and order in final form may file a written notice of objection within 
ten days of service. For purposes of the procedural regulations, the 
date of service of notice is deemed to be the date of publication of 
this Notice or the date an aggrieved person receives actual notice, 
whichever occurs first.
    The procedural regulations provide that an aggrieved party who 
fails to file a Notice of Objection within the time period specified in 
the regulations will be deemed to consent to the issuance of the 
proposed decision and order in final form. An aggrieved party who 
wishes to contest a determination made in a proposed decision and order 
must also file a detailed statement of objections within 30 days of the 
date of service of the proposed decision and order. In the statement of 
objections, the aggrieved party must specify each issue of fact or law 
that it intends to contest in any further proceeding involving the 
exception matter.
    Copies of the full text of this proposed decision and order are 
available in the Public Reference Room of the Office of Hearings and 
Appeals, Room 1E-234, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, 
SW., Washington, DC 20585, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 
1:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., except federal holidays.

    Dated: March 13, 1995.
George B. Breznay,
Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.
Sound Oil Company, Seattle, WA, Reportinfg Requirements--Lee-0153
    Sound Oil Company (Sound) filed an Application for Exception from 
the provision of filing Form EIA-782B, entitled ``Resellers'/Retailers' 
Monthly Petroleum Product Sales Report.'' The Exception request, if 
granted, would permit Sound to be exempted from filing Form EIA-782B. 
On January 19, 1995, the Department of Energy issued a Proposed 
Decision and Order which determined that the Exception request be 
denied.

[FR Doc. 95-6803 Filed 3-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3518

CW Bearing USA, 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/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.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 the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

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,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2694

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
EXHIBIT 32

                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 Quarterly  Report of Salisbury  Bancorp,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending  September 30, 2005, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
John F. Perotti,  Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  and I, John F. Foley,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
that:

      (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 result of operations
            of the Company.

/s/ John F. Perotti                               /s/ John F. Foley
---------------------------                       ---------------------------
    John F. Perotti                                   John F. Foley
    Chief Executive Officer                           Chief Financial Officer

                                       25
#### WILLIAM A. TILLIS, SR., v. CALVINE COTTON MILLS, INC, a Corporation, and LEON SALKIND.

(Filed 19 November, 1952.)

Appeal and Error § 37: Pleadings § 27—

Motion for bill of particulars is addressed to tbe sound discretion of tbe trial judge, and bis ruling thereon is not reviewable in tbe absence of abuse. G.S. 1-150.

Appeal by defendants from *Moore, J.,*April Term, 1952, of MeckleN-btjrg.

Appeal dismissed.

*534This-was a suit to recover damages for breach of contract. After the case had been once partially tried and the plaintiff had been examined adversely under order, the defendants moved for a bill of particulars. The motion was denied in the court’s discretion.

From the order denying motion for a bill of particulars the defendants appealed.

*C. T. Carswell and B. Irvin Boyle fox plaintiff, appellee.*

*Clayton & Sanders for defendants, appellants.*

Pee Cueiam.

It is the uniform holding of this Court that an application for a bill of particulars under G-.S. 1-150 is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and that his ruling thereon is not reviewable on appeal, except in case of manifest abuse of discretion. *Building Co.. v. Jones,*227 N.C. 282, 41 S.E. 2d 742; *Cody v. Hovey,*219 N.C. 369, 14 S.E. 2d 30; *Tickle v. Hobgood,*212 N.C. 762, 194 S.E. 461; *Temple v. Tel. Co.,*205 N.C. 441, 171 S.E. 630; *Townsend v. Williams,*117 N.C. 330, 23 S.E. 461; McIntosh 361.

On this record no evidence of abuse of discretion is made to appear.

Appeal dismissed.