alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 48 (Monday, March 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 13419]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6089]



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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing

agency: Department of the Navy, DOD.

action: Notice of availability of inventions for licensing.

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

summary: The inventions listed below are assigned to the United States 
Government as represented by the Secretary of the Navy and is available 
for licensing by the Department of the Navy.
    Copies of the patents cited are available from the Commissioner of 
Patents and Trademarks, Washington, D.C. 20231, for $3.00. Request for 
copies of the patents must include the patent number.
    Copies of the patent applications cited are available from the 
National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, Virginia 
22161 for $6.95 each ($10.95 outside the North American Continent). 
Requests for copies of the patent applications must include the patent 
application serial number. Claims are deleted from the copies of the 
patent applications sold to avoid premature disclosure.

for further information contact: Mr. R.J. Erickson, Staff Patent 
Attorney, Office of Naval Research, ONR OOCC, 800 North Quincy Street, 
Arlington, Virginia 22217-5660, telephone (703) 696-4001.
    Patent No. 5,259,055: Fiber Optic Microcable Produced with 
Radiation Cured Composite; filed May 23, 1988; patented November 2, 
1993.
    Patent Application Serial No. 07/199,820: Process for Manufacturing 
a Fiber Reinforced Optic Microcable with a UV Cured Resin; filed May 
26, 1988.
    Patent Application Serial No. 08/255,129: Fiber Optic Microcable 
Produced with Fiber Reinforced Ultraviolet Light Cured Resin and Method 
for Manufacturing same; filed June 7, 1994.
    Patent Application Serial No. 08/316,710: Fiber Optic Microcable 
Produced with Radiation Cured Composite: filed November 22, 1993.

    Dated: March 7, 1995.
 M.D. Schetzsle,
LT, JAGC, USNR, Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-6089 Filed 3-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-AE-M
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

552 

KA 10-01380 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOE SEYMOUR, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (CHRISTINE M. COOK OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JAMES P. MAXWELL

OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (William D.

Walsh, J.), rendered October 6, 2009. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sexual act in the

first degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously modified on the law by vacating the sentence and as

modified the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to

Onondaga County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the

following Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him, upon

his guilty plea, of criminal sexual act in the first degree (Penal Law

§ 130.50 [4]), defendant contends that his agreed upon sentence is

illegal and that he must therefore be afforded the opportunity to

withdraw his plea. We agree. Pursuant to the plea agreement, County

Court sentenced defendant as a second violent felony offender to a

determinate term of imprisonment of 12 years to be followed by a

period of five years of postrelease supervision (PRS). As the People

correctly concede, that sentence is illegal because the minimum period

of PRS that could be imposed on defendant, as a second violent felony

offender, is 10 years (see Penal Law § 70.45 [2-a] [i]). Thus, under

the circumstances presented here, we modify the judgment by vacating

the sentence, and we remit the matter to County Court to afford

defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea or be resentenced to a

legal period of PRS (see People v Lee, 64 AD3d 1236, 1237; see also

People v Griffin, 72 AD3d 1496, 1497; People v Motley [appeal No. 3],

56 AD3d 1158, 1159). 

Entered: June 14, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
##### 



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
   (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.
  /s/ Jeffrey L. KarafaJeffrey L. Karafa
Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer,
Dearborn Bancorp, Inc. 34
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-2018-0025-4831

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 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 10.34


                        AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


         THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is made as of the 29th day of
August, 2000, by and between Horizon Group Properties, Inc, a Maryland
corporation ("Employer"), and Gary J Skoien, an individual domiciled in the
State of Illinois ("Executive").

         Employer and Executive previously entered into an Employment Agreement
dated as of June 15, 1998 (the "Employment Agreement") providing for the
employment of Executive by Employer for a term expiring June 15, 2001.

         By resolution adopted by Employer's Board of Directors at its meeting
held August 29, 2000, Employer determined to amend certain sections of the
Employment Agreement.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the continued
service by Executive for Employer, Employer and Executive hereby amend the
Employment Agreement as follows:

1.  The first two sentences of Section 4(a)(i) are replaced in their entirety by
    the following:

         Employer may terminate this Agreement and Executive's employment
         pursuant to Section 2 or at any time for any reason or for no reason at
         all upon 30 days' prior written notice to Executive. In connection with
         the termination of Executive's services pursuant to either Section 2 or
         this Section 4(a)(i), Executive shall be entitled to receive (A) all
         accrued but unpaid amounts of the Base Salary through the effective
         date of termination, payable in accordance with the provisions of
         Section 3(a); (B) a pro rata portion of any Performance Bonus otherwise
         payable to Executive for the calendar year in which such termination
         occurs up to the effective date of such termination and, to the extent
         not previously paid, any Performance Bonus for any calendar years prior
         to the calendar year in which such termination occurs; (C) a
         termination distribution in an amount equal to the amount of the Base
         Salary then applicable (the "Normal Termination Distribution"), payable
         within 30 days of the effective date of termination; and (D) any vested
         benefits or amounts pursuant to Sections 3(c), 3(d), 3(e) and 3(f)
         through the effective date of termination, payable in accordance with
         the provisions of any such plan(s).

2.  As amended hereby, the Employment Agreement remains in full force and
    effect.

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

Horizon Group Properties, Inc.

By:                                           By:


/s/ David R. Tinkham                          /s/ Gary J. Skoien
------------------------------------          ---------------------------------
David R. Tinkham, Secretary                   Gary J. Skoien




                                       26
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          39,231,000
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      126,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                        75,000
<INVENTORY>                                         45,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                39,631,000
<PP&E>                                           1,055,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                     262,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  41,256,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,512,000
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                         56,000
<COMMON>                                        32,397,000
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,239,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    41,256,000
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   597,000
<CGS>                                              896,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (84,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,394,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,524,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,524,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,524,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (2.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (2.26)


</TABLE>
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeals of - )

)

Tetra Tech EC, Inc. ) ASBCA Nos. 62376-ADR, 62598-ADR

)

Under Contract No. W912DQ-15-D-3005 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: William M. Jack, Esq.

Dorn C. McGrath, Esq.

Amba M. Datta, Esq.

Ken M. Kanzawa, Esq.

 Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

 Washington, DC

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq.

 Engineer Chief Trial Attorney

Thomas J. Ingram, Esq.

 Engineer Trial Attorney

 U.S. Army Engineer District, Omaha

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeals are dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: April 21, 2021

KENNETH D. WOODROW

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 62376-ADR, 62598-ADR,

Appeals of Tetra Tech EC, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: April 21, 2021

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
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-2018-0025-2944

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
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-2018-0025-4932

Apergy ESP 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 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 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-106594, 333-126121, 333-193008), and on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-189006, 333-202702) of Superconductor Technologies Inc. of our report dated March 30, 2016 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion andincludes an explanatory paragraph raising substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern), relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Superconductor Technologies Inc. asof December 31, 2015 and 2014, and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2015, which report appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, as amended by Form 10-K/A. 

/s/ Marcum LLP

Marcum LLP

Los Angeles, California 

July 22, 2016
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3264

ADH Guardian USA LLC: 

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

_5-30-2019.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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 51 (Thursday, March 16, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14271-14272]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6425]



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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Meeting of the Semiconductor Technology Council

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of Public Law 92-463, the ``Federal 
Advisory Committee Act,'' notice is hereby given that the Semiconductor 
Technology Council will hold its initial [[Page 14272]] meeting. The 
Council's mission is to: link industry and national security needs to 
opportunities for cooperative investments, foster precompetitive 
cooperation among industry, government and academia, recommend 
opportunities for new R&D efforts and potential to rationalize and 
align on-going industry and government investments. Part of the meeting 
will be closed to the public in accordance with Section 10(d) of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act, and pursuant to the appropriate 
provisions of Section 552b(c)(3) and (4), Title 5, U.S.C. There will be 
an open session from 3:45 to 4:15 p.m.

DATES: March 28, 1995.

ADDRESSES: 1300 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1450, Arlington, VA 22209.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Lance Glasser, Director, ARPA/ESTO, 3701 N. Fairfax Drive, 
Arlington, VA 22203-1714; telephone: 703/696-2213.

    Dated: March 10, 1995.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 95-6425 Filed 3-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Guled Mohammed, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (William Wallace, III, J.), rendered on January 4, 1988, convicting defendant, following a jury trial, of assault in the second degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of *2Vs*to 7 years, is unanimously affirmed.

Defendant herein, following a jury trial, was acquitted of rape, sexual abuse and weapon charges, but convicted of assault, specifically, breaking the complainant’s arm. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence against him with respect to intent and whether the victim suffered a serious physical injury. In that regard, the complainant’s testimony that defendant struck her with a karate chop in the course of a violent struggle constituted an adequate predicate from which the jury could conclude that defendant intended to cause injury *(see, People v Hildenbrandt,*125 AD2d 819, *Iv denied*69 NY2d 881; *People v Thomas,*50 NY2d 467). Moreover, it is evident that the complainant suffered a "protracted impairment of health” (Penal Law § 10.00 [10]) based upon the evidence that she suffered a fractured humerus requiring several weeks of immobilization. Defendant was, further, not entitled to a justification charge. Counsel did not request such an instruction in his 24-page request-to-charge memorandum, and the claim of self-defense was not raised either during the defense opening or summation. Finally, the trial court did not *368abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
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-2018-0025-2552

Kimberly-Clark 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 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