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

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-4620

ECM Industries 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 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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4167

Tianhai Electric North America:

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

General Counsel
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 18 - 00436 - CR BRYAN MATTHEW ROCHA, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 47th District Court Potter County, Texas Trial Court No. 76,010 -

A - CR, Honorable Dan L. Schaap, Presiding 

### February 1 , 2019 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before CAMPBELL and PIRTLE and P ARKER , JJ. Pending before this Court is appellant Bryan Matthew Rocha’s motion to dismiss his appeal. As required by Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, appellant and his attorney have signed the motion. No decision of this Court having been del ivered to date, we grant the motion. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith. Per Curiam Do not publish.
Exhibit 10.12



 Exhibit 10.12 
 AMENDMENT TO THE ASHEVILLE SAVINGS BANK 
 SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED

 DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS DEFERRAL PLAN 
 This Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Directors and Officers Deferral Plan (“Deferral Plan”) was approved and adopted by the Compensation Committee of the Asheville Savings Bank
Board of Directors (the “Compensation Committee”) on June 21, 2011. Said amendment will be effective as of the effective date of the ASB Bancorp, Inc. initial public offering. 

WITNESSETH THAT: 
 WHEREAS, Asheville Savings Bank (the “Bank”) maintains the Deferral Plan for the purpose of rewarding designated executive officers and members of the Board of Directors of the Bank for
their contributions to the Bank; and 
 WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee wishes to amend the Deferral Plan to allow
each plan participant to make a one-time election to transfer his or her benefits under the Deferral Plan into a trust for the new ASB Bancorp, Inc. Stock-Based Deferral Plan (“Stock Plan Trust”). The transferred funds will be used by the
Stock Plan Trustee to purchase shares of ASB Bancorp, Inc. common stock in the ASB Bancorp, Inc. initial public offering; and 

WHEREAS, Article 7 of the Deferral Plan permits the Bank to amend the plan at any time and from time to time. 

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Deferral Plan shall be, and hereby is, amended as follows: 

Effective as of the effective date of the ASB Bancorp, Inc. initial public offering, the Deferral Plan shall be amended to add the
following new Section P to Article 10 of the Deferral Plan: 
  

	 	“P.	One Time Election. Notwithstanding anything in this Plan to the contrary, a Participant may make a one time election to transfer all or a portion of his
or her Deferred Compensation Account in this Plan to the ASB Bancorp, Inc. Stock-Based Deferral Plan. This election must be made no later than 30 days after the effective date of the ASB Bancorp, Inc. initial public offering. All account balances
transferred to the ASB Bancorp, Inc. Stock-Based Deferral Plan Trust will be subject to the terms and conditions of the new Stock-Based Deferral Plan, with the exception of any vesting conditions or benefit/distribution elections made (if any) under
this Plan, which will remain in full force and effect following the one-time transfer.”
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4129

Tianhai Electric North America:

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

General Counsel
**EXHIBIT 99.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, James W.Klingler, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report TroyGroup, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended February 28, 2003 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairlypresents in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperations of Troy Group, Inc.
|   | By:    | /s/James W. Klingler                                 |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Name:  | James W. Klingler                                    |
|   | Title: | Vice President Finance & Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4911 

To provide for the establishment of a pilot program to provide grants to 

community mental health centers for the placement of social workers 

with law enforcement agencies, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 26, 2023 

Mr. HARDER of California introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide for the establishment of a pilot program to provide grants to community mental health centers for the 

placement of social workers with law enforcement agencies, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Supporting the Health 

5 and Safety of Law Enforcement Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT. 

7 Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment 

8 of this Act, the Attorney General shall establish a pilot 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4911 IH

1 program to provide grants to community mental health 

2 centers for the placement of social workers with law en3 forcement agencies to facilitate closer coordination on law 

4 enforcement issues with an underlying connection to men5 tal health. 

6 SEC. 3. NUMBER AND AMOUNT OF GRANTS. 

7 The Attorney General shall award not more than 4 

8 grants each fiscal year to community mental health cen9 ters (as such term is defined in section 1861 of the Social 

10 Security Act) in each of the 4 census regions. Each such 

11 grant shall be in an amount not to exceed $300,000. The 

12 term of such a grant shall be 3 years. Each such mental 

13 health center shall partner with a law enforcement agency 

14 that employs not more than 100 officers in order to carry 

15 out the purposes of the grant. 

16 SEC. 4. ELIGIBILITY FOR PLACEMENT WITH A LAW EN17 FORCEMENT AGENCY. 

18 To be eligible for placement with a law enforcement 

19 agency under this Act, a social worker shall be— 

20 (1) licensed under the applicable State law; and 

21 (2) employed by a community mental health 

22 center. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4911 IH

1 SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

2 There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 

3 this Act $2,500,000 for fiscal years 2024, 2025, and 

4 2026. 

5 SEC. 6. TERMINATION OF PROGRAM; REPORT TO CON6 GRESS. 

7 This Act is repealed on the date that is 3 years after 

8 a grant is first made under this Act. The Attorney General 

9 shall report to Congress not later than six months there10 after on the outcomes of any cases where the social worker 

11 became involved and the total number of such cases, and 

12 any other information deemed relevant. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3009

MannCorp, 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 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

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4547

Swagelok 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

General Counsel
Exhibit 31.1

 

 

 

**CertificationPursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

** **

I, William G. Rice, certify that:

 

| 1. |  | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 2 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Aptose BiosciencesInc.; and |
|----|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 2. |  | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |
|----|--|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Date: April 12, 2019

 

|  

  | /s/ William G. Rice, Ph.D. 

Name: William G. Rice, Ph.D. 

Title: President and Chief Executive Officer

 

 

  |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
EXHIBIT 10.35

U.S. WIRELESS DATA Inc.
Delivering the New Standard in Transaction Processing


November 24, 1997


Raymond J. Mueller
3130 Butler Bay drive, N
Windermere, Florida 34786

Dear Ray:

Pursuant to our discussions, this letter is the formal offer of employment which
I am  delighted to extend to you. The  following  outlines the  specifics of the
offer for your consideration:

Position:  Vice President, Operations

Reports to:  Chief Executive Officer

Start Date:  November 24, 1997

Compensation:  Base  Salary of  $100,000.00  annually  with  $25,000 in bonus on
achievement of agreed upon performance goals.

Stock Options:  50,000  Qualified Stock option shares with a vesting schedule of
10% at grant date, plus 3% per month thereafter.  The exercise price will be the
average  trading  price of the stock on the day of the grant.  Additional  stock
options,  up to  50,000  will be  made  available  to you  based  upon  specific
performance criteria, which will be developed within 90 days of your employment.

Benefits:  You will be eligible for all U.S. Wireless Data benefits according to
existing eligibility requirements.

Severance:  Should U.S. Wireless Data, Inc.  terminates your employment  without
cause,  your base salary will be  continued  for a period of one (1) year beyond
your termination date.

Ray, I look forward to working with you. Please indicate your acceptance of this
offer by signing and dating below

Best regards,


Evon A. Kelly



Accepted this 24th day of November, 1997    By:/s/ Raymond J. Mueller    
                                               -------------------------
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6212

LUCIUS ELWOOD MCLEAN,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

L. A. OLIGMUELLER, JR., Detective; DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S 

OFFICE; B. J. BARNES; SGT. LINEIR, 

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Durham. Thomas David Schroeder, 

District Judge. (1:09-cv-00953-TDS-LPA)

Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: March 24, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lucius Elwood McLean, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lucius Elwood McLean seeks to appeal the magistrate 

judge’s order and recommendation to dismiss McLean’s 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 (2006) complaint without prejudice. This court may 

exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 

(2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 

28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. 

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949). The 

magistrate judge’s order is neither a final order nor an 

appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Moreover, where a 

magistrate judge has been designated by a district court judge 

to submit “proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the 

disposition” of a prisoner petition challenging conditions of 

confinement under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006), the parties 

must be given fourteen days within which to “serve and file 

written objections,” and the district judge is required to “make 

a de novo determination of those portions of the report or 

specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 

objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2006 and Supp. 1A 

2009). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
3

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4510

Williams Controls Incorporated:

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

General Counsel
#### Anthony Vines, Appellant, v Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority et al., Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard R. Silver, J.), entered October 28, 1988, which denied plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 (a) for a default judgment against defendant Miller and granted defendants 20 days to serve Miller’s answer, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Where the public authority defendants interposed an answer in timely fashion and sufficiently demonstrated they were not aware of the pendency of the action against their employee, whom they are bound, under Public Authorities Law § 1212, to indemnify, there was no abuse of discretion in denying this motion to enter a default judgment against the individual employee defendant *(see, Willis v City of New York,*154 AD2d 289). In such circumstances, rigid adherence to a requirement that there be an affidavit of merit by the individual defendant himself would be inappropriate *(Mufalli v Ford Motor Co.,*105 AD2d 642, 643-644). We have previously held the court may extend a defendant’s time to answer pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d) in the absence of a cross motion for such relief *(Shure v Village of Westhampton Beach,*121 AD2d 887). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.