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 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4331

Scosche 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 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
[CONFORMED COPY]

Exhibit 4.64

Eighth Amendment to Common Stock Purchase Agreement

by and between

ZeniMax Media Inc.

and

SBS Broadcasting S.A.

April 30, 2003

---

Eighth Amendment to Common Stock Purchase Agreement

This Eighth Amendment to Common Stock Purchase Agreement (the "Eight Amendment") is made as of this
30th day of April 2003, to amend the Common Stock Purchase Agreement dated October 30, 2000, as modified by a First Amendment dated May 15, 2001, a Second Amendment
dated June 14, 2001, a Third Amendment dated April 16, 2002, a Fourth Amendment dated June 6, 2002, a Fifth Amendment dated September 27, 2002, a Sixth Amendment dated
December 20, 2002, and a Seventh Amendment dated March 26, 2003 (the"Agreement") by and between ZeniMax Media Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), and SBS Broadcasting S.A., a Luxembourg corporation (the "Purchaser" or
"SBS").

In
consideration of the representations, warranties and covenants in the Agreement and for other good and valuable consideration, the Company and SBS hereby agree as follows:

The
parties agree that all other terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement remain in full force and effect.

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Eighth Amendment as of the day and year first above written.

| |  | COMPANY:          
| |  | ------------------
| |  | ZENIMAX MEDIA INC.
| |  | By:               
| |  | Name:             
| |  | Title:            

| |  | Address: | 1370 Piccard Drive, Suite 120
Rockville, MD 20850 USA
| |  | -------- | -----------------------------------------------------

2

---

| |  | PURCHASER:           
| |  | ---------------------
| |  | SBS Broadcasting S.A.
| |  | By:                  
| |  | Name:                
| |  | Title:               

| |  | Address: | SBS Broadcasting S.A.
8-10 rue Mathias Hardt
BP 39
L-2010
Luxembourg                                     
| |  | -------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | Copy to: | SBS Services B.V.
Quintet Office Park
Rietlandpark 353
1019EM Amsterdam
Holland
Attn: Corporate Secretary

3

---

QuickLinks
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-2018-0025-2238

Valeo North America, 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
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR EN BANC RECONSIDERATION 

Appellate case name: In re Patti J. Wagner, as Guardian of Jenny Wagner, an Incapacitated 

Adult 

Appellate case number: 01-15-00774-CV

Trial court case number: 2009-40925

Trial court: 269th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: January 22, 2018

Party filing motion: Real Parties in Interest, Four J’s Community Living Center, Inc. and 

Anthonia Uduma

It is ordered that the motion for en banc reconsideration is DENIED GRANTED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 Acting Individually Acting for the Court

The en banc court consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings, Keyes, Higley, Bland, 

Massengale, Brown, and Caughey.

Justice Lloyd, not participating.

Justice Massengale, voting to grant en banc reconsideration and dissenting from the denial of en 

banc reconsideration with separate opinion.

Date: July 12, 2018
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,905
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,218,406
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,220,311
<PP&E>                                      93,162,180
<DEPRECIATION>                              28,846,663
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              66,535,828
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          118,944
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  66,416,884
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                66,535,828
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,316,922
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,223,054
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               476,119
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              9,803,862
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          9,803,862
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 9,803,862
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.66
        

</TABLE>
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3855

Academy, Ltd:

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
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-30580 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ELTON LEE,

DefendantAppellant.

------------------------------------------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 00-CR-196-3-F

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

January 10, 2002 Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM: *

The Assistant Federal Public Defender appointed to represent El ton Lee has moved for leave

to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Lee has

filed a response reque st ing t he appointment of substitute counsel, which is DENIED. Our

independent review of counsel’s brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly,

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

MICHAEL DEMEO

, Appellant,

v.

ROBERT GOLD

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 16

- 3900

[ October 5, 2017 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Timothy L. Bailey , Judge; L.T. Case No. DVCE

16002008

.

Bryan Raymond, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No brief filed on behalf of appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

T

AYLOR

, M AY and K UNTZ

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
January 2 9 , 2015



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NAM KHOA NGUYEN , Appellant

NO. 14

- 14

- 00064

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

. We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 51 (Thursday, March 16, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 14316]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6516]



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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee Meeting on Air Traffic 
Issues

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meeting; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The notice corrects the start time described in a notice of 
meeting published on March 6, 1995 (60 FR 12280).

DATES: The meeting will be held on March 24, 1995, at 9 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Ave., NW., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Reginald C. Matthews, Air Traffic Rules and Procedures Service, 
Federal Aviation Administration, telephone: 202-267-8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 6, 1995, the Federal Aviation 
Administration published a notice announcing an Aviation Rulemaking 
Advisory Committee Meeting on Air Traffic Issues. Under SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION, that document erroneously indicated 1 p.m. as the start 
time for the meeting. The correct start time for the meeting is 9 a.m.

    Issued in Washington, DC., on March 10, 1995.
Reginald C. Matthews,
Assistant Executive Director, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee on 
Air Traffic Issues.
[FR Doc. 95-6516 Filed 3-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and accompanies the annual
report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the "Form 10-K") of
Dearborn Bancorp, Inc. (the "Issuer").

         I, Jeffrey L. Karafa, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Issuer, certify that:

         (i)      The Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
                  (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

         (ii)     The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Issuer.

Dated: March 25, 2004

                                                  /s/ Jeffrey L. Karafa
                                          --------------------------------------
                                                      Jeffrey L. Karafa
                                          Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer,
                                                    Dearborn Bancorp, Inc.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 15, 2011 

d0412 

Order 

 

April 15, 2011 

139502(21) 

THOMAS M. FANNING, Personal 

Representative of the ESTATE OF JEAN 

KIRK FANNING, Deceased, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139502 

 COA: 290721 

Oakland CC: 2008-090281-NH 

WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Chief Justice, a stipulation signed by counsel for the parties 

agreeing to the dismissal of defendant-appellant’s motion for reconsideration is 

considered, and the motion for reconsideration is DISMISSED with prejudice and 

without costs.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                            PAYLESS SHOESOURCE, INC.
                      COMPUTATION OF NET EARNINGS PER SHARE



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                    13 Weeks Ended         39 Weeks Ended
                                  --------------------   --------------------
                                  Oct. 28,    Oct. 30,    Oct. 28,  Oct. 30,
(Thousands, except per share)       2000        1999        2000      1999
                                  ---------  ----------   ---------  --------
<S>                               <C>        <C>          <C>        <C>
Basic Computation:
-----------------

Net earnings                      $ 32,371   $ 34,618    $106,636   $121,232

Weighted average common
 shares outstanding                 22,126     30,926      24,293     31,591
                                  --------   --------    --------   --------

Basic earnings per share          $   1.46   $   1.12    $   4.39   $   3.84
                                  ========   ========    ========   ========



Diluted Computation:
-------------------

Net earnings                      $ 32,371   $ 34,618    $106,636   $121,232

Weighted average common
 shares outstanding                 22,126     30,926      24,293     31,591

Net effect of dilutive stock
  options based on the treasury
  stock method                         382        161         260        185
                                  --------   --------    --------   --------

Outstanding shares for diluted
  earnings per share                22,508     31,087      24,553     31,776
                                  ========   ========    ========   ========

Diluted earnings per share        $   1.44   $   1.11    $   4.34   $   3.82
                                  ========   ========    ========   ========
</TABLE>



Note: Basic earnings per share is computed by dividing net earnings by the
weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the period.
Diluted earnings per share includes the effect of conversions of options.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

DAVID RUSSELL POSEY,

Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF JUDICIAL RECORDS,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 58 EM 2023

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 5

th day of December, 2023, the “Petition for Review” and the 

“Petition for Leave to File Post Submission Communication” are DENIED.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

962 

CA 15-00348 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. 

 

SCOTT WINTERMUTE, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

VANDEMARK CHEMICAL, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

RUPP, BAASE, PFALZGRAF, CUNNINGHAM & COPPOLA LLC, BUFFALO (MELISSA L.

VINCTON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

BISOGNO & MEYERSON, LLP, BROOKLYN (PATRICK BISOGNO OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Niagara County

(Matthew J. Murphy, III, A.J.), entered May 9, 2014. The judgment

awarded plaintiff money damages upon a jury verdict. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the posttrial motion is

granted, the verdict is set aside and a new trial is granted. 

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for

injuries he allegedly sustained when he slipped and fell inside a

building at defendant’s chemical plant. Following a trial, the jury

returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff, and Supreme Court denied

defendant’s posttrial motion seeking to set aside the verdict pursuant

to CPLR 4404 (a). We agree with defendant that the court abused its

discretion in refusing to allow defendant to present the testimony of

a witness who interviewed plaintiff concerning the facts and

circumstances of his fall (see generally Kaplan v Sparks [appeal No.

1], 221 AD2d 974, 974). That evidence was relevant to the critical

issue whether plaintiff slipped on snow or ice inside of defendant’s

building, or whether plaintiff tracked the snow into the building on

his boots. Moreover, inasmuch as plaintiff was in possession of the

written report generated as a result of the interview well before

trial, plaintiff demonstrated no prejudice from the untimely

disclosure of this witness (see O’Callaghan v Walsh, 211 AD2d 531,

531-532). We thus conclude that the court erred in denying

defendant’s posttrial motion to set aside the verdict and for a new

trial (see CPLR 4404 [a]). 

In light of our determination, we do not address defendant’s

remaining contentions.

Entered: December 31, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
ex10-2.htm















Stoecklein Law Group, a Professional Corporation




Practice Limited to Federal Securities













	
Emerald Plaza

	
Telephone:  (619) 704-1310


	
402 West Broadway

	
Facsimile:  (619) 704-1325


	
Suite 690

	
email:  djs@slgseclaw.com


	
San Diego, California  92101

	
web:  www.slgseclaw.com


	  	  
	  	  
	  	  
	  	  















Drew Hall


President


Bassline Productions, Inc.


860 Sacramento Ave.


Sacramento, CA 95605












RE:  Offering on a Best Efforts All or None Basis-Waiver of Rights as a Creditor







Dear Mr. Hall:







We understand that you are filing a Form S-1 Registration and plan on raising money on a best efforts, all or none basis.  The money raised from this offering will be put into an account that will not bar attachment from creditors.  We know we may be one of those creditors and we agree to waive any rights and claims we have to funds in that account, other than any amount you pay us voluntarily pursuant to our agreement.












Sincerely,

















/s/ Donald J. Stoecklein


Donald J. Stoecklein
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-2018-0025-4204

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