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

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4036

Enerpac:

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
<PAGE>




EXHIBIT 32

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor
Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted), Anna E. Gluskin, Chief
Executive Officer and President of Generex Biotechnology Corporation (the
"Company"), and Rose C. Perri, Chief Operating Officer of the Company, each
hereby certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge:

1. The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31,
2004, and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at
the end of the period covered by the Report.


DATE: December 15, 2004             By: /s/ Anna E. Gluskin
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Anna E. Gluskin, Chief Executive Officer
                                    (Principal Executive Officer)



DATE: December 15, 2004             By: /s/ Rose C. Perri
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Rose C. Perri, Chief Operating Officer
                                    (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
EXHIBIT 10.1

ORGANA GARDENS INTERNATIONAL INC.                

(the “Company”)

 

Officer and Director Resignation

I hereby resign as Director and Officer of the Company, effective immediately.

Dated:  June 24, 2011

/s/:  Matt Kelly

	
	Matt Kelly
cc: Hon Linda Marie Bell, District Judge Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas Law Offices of Steven M. Burns, LLC Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A eo
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**Certifications**

 

I, Matthew E. Czajkowski, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of POZEN Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight 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 financialcondition, 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 ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) Designed suchdisclosure 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 usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained in SEC Release 34-47986] 

 

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of the annual report) 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 mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal 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’sinternal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 12, 2003****
SECOND AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


     SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the "Amendment"), made as of this
11th day of September 1997 and effective as of July 1, 1997, by and between Greg
Manning  Auctions,  Inc., a New York corporation  having its principal office at
775 Passaic Avenue,  West Caldwell,  New Jersey 07006 (the "Company"),  and Greg
Manning,  an individual  residing at 5 Hunter's Glen Road, Far Hills, New Jersey
07931 (the "Executive").

     WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive entered into an Employment
Agreement  dated as of May 14, 1993, as amended by an amendment  effective as of
June 30, 1995 (the "Agreement"); and

     WHEREAS,  the Company and the  Executive  desire to amend the  Agreement in
certain respects;

     NOW,  THEREFORE,  in consideration  of the mutual promises  hereinafter set
forth, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged,  the parties
hereto, desiring to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows:

     1. Paragraph 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to extend the term of the
Agreement to June 30, 1999  (subject to earlier  termination  as provided in the
Agreement).

     2.  Paragraph  3(a) of the Agreement is hereby  amended to delete the first
sentence thereof and insert in lieu thereof the following:

     (a) For the full, prompt and faithful  performance of all of his duties and
services hereunder, the Company shall pay the Executive an annual base salary of
$210,000 per year for the period of his employment hereunder.

     3. All capitalized  terms used herein and not otherwise  defined shall have
their respective meanings as set forth in the Agreement.

     4. This Amendment shall be effective for all purposes as of July 1,
1997.  Except as hereby  amended,  all the terms and conditions of the Agreement
shall remain in full force and effect.


     IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of
the date first above written.

                           GREG MANNING AUCTIONS, INC.



                                                 

                              By:  William T. Tully, Jr., Chief Operating
                                   Officer and Executive Vice President



                                   Greg Manning
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 56 (Thursday, March 23, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15297]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7155]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[WY-920-41-5700; WYW102759]


Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease

    Pursuant to the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 
3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas 
lease WYW102759 for lands in Sublette County, Wyoming, was timely filed 
and was accompanied by all the required rentals accruing from the date 
of termination.
    The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and 
royalties at rates of $5.00 per acre, or fraction thereof, per year and 
16\2/3\ percent, respectively.
    The lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and $125 
to reimburse the Department for the cost of this Federal Register 
notice. The lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of 
the lease as set out in Section 31 (d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands 
Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management 
is proposing to reinstate lease WYW102759 effective December 1, 1994, 
subject to the original terms and conditions of the lease and the 
increased rental and royalty rates cited above.
Pamela J. Lewis,
Supervisory Land Law Examiner.
[FR Doc. 95-7155 Filed 3-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-M
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF l’EXAS~ AUS ’flN

, I:onorablc

A. Xc. Fribbia

o&ion Ho. 0.

‘h3J Liablll’ . I

The oonetAtutiona1 ~~0vtaiOns that epprorlahneara& to tti8 ~UfStiOri RX8 ~%ctinnc 1 end 2 of! &tic19 En **Of** the **CO66titUtiW Of**  **!ikiXYs** , ,but wb' do not bclievr seid -;rorlaton6

ir$cda th6 oollootfo~'ofthin tex. *&la %x%t~cn 1 ron6S8# fOllOW'at-

-%f~~ixnti~ti

~h6ll b0 6&3i kna ~nmtm. All ~ropcrty 1.n this :‘tuta, wbstlmr awntsd by nsewel peroons or cozporetiontn;a, other than mnio$gsl, c.haU be taxed $.a

pro~ort%onto it6 value, WAQ& shell be ascsrteluedMD rdty be prmided~by lm. **%%6 f.6&6.srFitW6**  **!26p ffS>OYa**  **:6 POX1**  **t6X. It**  **riay** nrso i5lpoEe

acouputiontoxca,~both upon czltur61 geraou~ end 'upon

corgorcrbiona,

Other then ma&- 01p&a, doing nay busiaaK8 in this ntace. ft. ri0y 61~30 tex Inoomi~~cl?

both notural prraonn cm& 00~ gorbtions other the.n m~~fcigcl,except tbot g!orson.3 unpqcd in mabarical~cnc! afyfoulturul

pur-~ uu4t6 shall imr6T be ~Q&m? to psy ex 06aui?ation taxa ~roviCo5, tneC two bwdra5 and r+np dollsrn worth of housohoZdend kitchen furniture,bclongill.@ to eeoh rdlg in t&f6 Stet@.Khellba sx6qti, f+ro?3 teX6tiOn,and prOVib0d further that the oaciipatlon~ tax 1cmisc bjr

enp oounty, oity or town 'POP my pear on par3ona or o0rp0rnti0na puxtmln(as any profae6lonor buaine&wlahall 

### not cbxcaed one. h6X.i of the tax latiiod

by th6 Sate tar the tratsr, period on auoh ~rofea6h.a or btihiettsi” TbS p6irtOr said ??60titXl 2 thet~daala ti%h OO6Ugl6tdOn t6X88 f%ads es fOllOWSf

"All ooonpetionCnxca f&e%1 be-equal. und unlfOrm Upon the f.mz,Q 61S66 Of subjeota wlthfn the litit pi' ths suthozity lovying the Lur) . . ."

%R:q, co11 c, f;otYch

.-n
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-11500

Tower Manufacturing Corporation:

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
#### N. H. FORESTER, D. E. SMOAK and W. W. SMOAK, Trading as CENTRAL MOTOR COMPANY, v. LEONARD VYNE.

(Filed 9 January, 1929.)

Appeal and Error — Assignment of Errors — Necessity Therefor.

In order to sustain an appeal on the ground of the alleged failure of the judge to examine the evidence taken before a referee with a view to coming to his own conclusions before confirming the report, this fact must be made to appear, and exceptions thereto properly taken, it being required of the appellant to show error on appeal.

Appeal by defendant from *Schenck, J.,*at June Term, 1928, of Wilices.

Civil action for an accounting and to recover amount which plaintiffs allege the defendant is indebted to them by reason of the sale of certain automobiles made under contract for the mutual account and benefit of plaintiffs and defendant.

As the case involves a long accounting, it was referred under the statute to Hon. W. 0. Newland, who found the facts and reported the same, together with his conclusions of law, to the court, holding that plaintiffs were entitled to recover of the defendant the sum of $1,497.39 with interest and costs.

Exceptions were duly filed to the report of the referee, all of which were overruled, and the report was approved by the judge of the Superior Court; judgment was thereupon entered in favor of the plaintiff, *478from which the defendant appeals, assigning error as follows: “The first and only exception was to the signing of the judgment of his Honor, Michael Sehenck.”

*Frank D. Hackett and J. H. Burke for plaintiffs.*

*J ohn B. James, J. H. WMcher and J. M. Brown for defendant.*

Stacy, C. J.

The defendant contends in his brief that under the decision in *Thompson v. Smith,*156 N. C., 345, 72 S. E., 379, the judgment should be vacated because the judge did not examine the evidence with a view to forming his own conclusions, but simply adopted the report of the referee, as there was some evidence to support the referee’s finding of fact. In answer to this position, it is sufficient to say that the same is not apparent from the record and the question is not presented by any assignment of error.

The burden is on the appellant to show error; it is not presumed. *Jones v. Candler, ante,*382; *In re Ross,*182 N. C., 477, 109 S. E., 365.

Affirmed.
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-2018-0025-1653

Eccotemp Systems, LLC:

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 this particular product is available 

only from China.

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 45 (Wednesday, March 8, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 12721]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5448]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[WA-18-1-5933b; FRL-5152-1]


Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: 
Washington

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) revision submitted by the State of Washington for the purpose of 
establishing a Small Business Stationary Source Technical and 
Environmental Compliance Assistance Program. The SIP revision was 
submitted by the State to satisfy the Federal mandate of the Clean Air 
Act (CAA or Act), to ensure that small businesses have access to the 
technical assistance and regulatory information necessary to comply 
with the CAA. In the final rules section of this Federal Register, the 
EPA is approving the State's SIP revision as a direct final rule 
without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a 
noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no adverse 
comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the 
direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to 
this proposed rule, no further activity is contemplated in relation to 
this rule. If the EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule 
will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in 
a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not 
institute a second comment period on this document.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing by 
April 7, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to Montel Livingston, 
Environmental Protection Specialist (AT-082), Air Programs Section, at 
the EPA Regional Office listed. Copies of the documents relevant to 
this proposed rule are available for public inspection during normal 
business hours at the following locations. The interested persons 
wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the 
appropriate office at least 24 hours before the visiting day.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Air Programs 
Section, 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.
    Washington State Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA 
98504.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David J. Dellarco, Air and Radiation 
Branch (AT-082), EPA, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-
4978.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the direct 
final rule which is located in the rules section of this Federal 
Register.

    Dated: February 1, 1995.
Chuck Clarke,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-5448 Filed 3-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ICG SERVICES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES FOR THE
SIX MONTHS  ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                              507,192
<SECURITIES>                         16,000
<RECEIVABLES>                         4,858
<ALLOWANCES>                          2,080
<INVENTORY>                             652
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    557,878
<PP&E>                              190,144
<DEPRECIATION>                       65,049
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      707,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                61,826
<BONDS>                             570,042
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0<F1>
<PREFERRED>                            0<F1>
<COMMON>                               0<F1>
<OTHER-SE>                           75,332
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        707,200
<SALES>                                0<F1>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     81,515
<CGS>                                  0<F1>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        51,844
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     60,489
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        788
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   17,119
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (37,375)
<INCOME-TAX>                             25
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (37,400)
<DISCONTINUED>                         0<F1>
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0<F1>
<CHANGES>                              0<F1>
<NET-INCOME>                        (37,400)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>THIS VALUE IS NOT APPLICABLE.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Emanuel CARTER, Defendant/Appellant. Emanuel CARTER, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Nos. 60759, 63364.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Aug. 24, 1993.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 4, 1993.

Application to Transfer Denied Nov. 23, 1993.

Stormy B. White, St. Louis, for defendant/appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Millie E. Aulbur, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff/respondent.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 Motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit; the judgment of the motion court *361is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).