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

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4374

Milacron:

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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Aubrey Beavers, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnerney, J.), rendered May 17, 1989, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not supported by the record and should have been raised by collateral motion *(People v Pascale,*48 NY2d 997; *People v Conyers,*114 AD2d 967; *cf., People v Brown,*45 NY2d 852).

Moreover, the defendant comes forward with no basis for disturbing the sentence which he understood would be imposed when he entered his plea of guilty *(People v Kazepis,*101 AD2d 816). Lawrence, J. P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.
ex10_5.htm










NINETEENTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

















This Nineteenth Amendment to Employment Agreement is made and entered into as of March 1, 2011 by and between PriceSmart, Inc., a Delaware Corporation ("Employer") and Brud Drachman ("Executive").












Recitals








	
A)  

	
On January 11, 2000 an Employment Agreement was made and entered into by and between Employer and Executive.













	
B)  

	
Said Employment Agreement has been amended on eighteen prior occasions;













	
C)  

	
Employer and Executive now desire to further amend the Employment Agreement, as set forth hereinbelow:

















Agreement








	
1.  

	
Section 3.1 of the Agreement which provides:












3.1           Term. The term of Executive’s employment hereunder shall commence on March 31, 2000 and shall continue until March 31, 2011 unless sooner terminated or extended as hereinafter provided.












is hereby amended, effective March 1, 2011, to provide as follows:













	
3.1  

	
Term.  The term of Executive’s employment hereunder shall commence on March 31, 2000 and shall continue until March 31, 2012 unless sooner terminated or extended as hereinafter provided.













	
2.  

	
All other terms of the Employment Agreement, as amended, shall remain unaltered and fully effective.

















Executed in San Diego, California, as of the date first written above.






















EXECUTIVE                                                                                                EMPLOYER


PRICESMART, INC.







Brud Drachman                                                                           By: ____________________







______________________                                                     Name: Jose Luis Laparte 




 


Its: President
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-2018-0025-4678

II-VI 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 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
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 JOHN JUAREZ , 2 Plaintiff-Appellant, 3

v. NO. 33,539 4 WILLIAM R. REHM, 5 Defendant-Appellee. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 7 C. Shannon Bacon, District Judge 8 Carter & Valle Law Firm, P.C. 9 Criostoir O’Cleireachain 10 Albuquerque, NM 11 for Appellant 12 Rosales Law Group, P.C. 13 James Douglas Green 14 Albuquerque, NM 15 for Appellee 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 FRY, Judge. 182 {1} Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of 1 proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance has 2 been filed, and the time for doing so has expired. 3 {2} AFFIRMED. 4 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 5

__________________________________ 6 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 7 WE CONCUR: 8

_________________________________ 9 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 10

_________________________________ 11 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 12
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Killbuck Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Diane Knowles, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,; and
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Diane S. Knowles   
|    |  | Diane S. Knowles       
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer
|    |  | August 10, 2005        



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Killbuck Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by Killbuck Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT 31(a)**

I, Henry Dattler, chief executive officer of OPENLiMiT, Inc. (“Registrant”) certify that: 

1.     I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB (“Report”) of Registrant; 

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, in light 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 financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this Report; 

4.     I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have: 

a)     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Report is being prepared; 

b)     Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this Report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this Report based on such evaluation; and 

c)     Disclosed in this Report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5.     I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

a)     All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls 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’s internal controls over financial reporting. 

Date: May 12, 2006 

/s/ Henry Dattler

Henry Dattler 

Chief Executive Officer 

----
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.<TABLE> <S> <C><ARTICLE>    5<S>                                                      <C><PERIOD-TYPE>                                          9-MOS<PERIOD-START><FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                Dec-31-2000<PERIOD-END>                                     Sep-30-2000<CASH>                                                 3,367<SECURITIES>                                               0<RECEIVABLES>                                          3,460<ALLOWANCES>                                               0<INVENTORY>                                                0<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      11,870<PP&E>                                               573,502<DEPRECIATION>                                        43,120<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       542,252<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                242,267<BONDS>                                                    0<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0<PREFERRED>                                                0<COMMON>                                                   0<OTHER-SE>                                           282,982<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         542,252<SALES>                                                    0<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      67,573<CGS>                                                      0<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         20,740<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      14,900<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    12,673<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       19,260<INCOME-TAX>                                               0<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   19,260<DISCONTINUED>                                             0<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0<CHANGES>                                                  0<NET-INCOME>                                          19,260<EPS-BASIC>                                             1.32<EPS-DILUTED>                                           1.32</TABLE>
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 26, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-4297

Valmet, 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 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
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                          GLOBAL ELECTION SYSTEMS INC.
                         Computation of Per-Share Income
                              Treasury Stock Method

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     Period Ended           Period Ended
                                                   December 31, 1999      December 31, 1998

                                                     Six Months              Six Months

<S>                                                 <C>                    <C>
Weighted average number of share outstanding          18,550,795              18,483,264

Total common and common equivalent shares             20,134,129              20,123,699

Net Income (Loss) for the period                    $    787,965            $   (698,447)

Weighted average number of share outstanding          18,550,795              18,483,264

Earnings per share - basic                          $       0.04            $      (0.04)

Net Income for the period                           $    787,965            $   (698,447)

Total common and common equivalent shares             20,134,129              20,123,699

Earnings per share - fully diluted                  $       0.04            $      N / A

Earnings per share:
</TABLE>

Basic earnings per share is computed by dividing the net income for the period
by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding for the period.

Fully diluted earnings per share is computed by dividing the net income for the
period by the common and common equivalent shares outstanding for the period.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Billy D. WILLIAMS, Appellant. Billy D. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 66443, 68148.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District.

Jan. 2, 1996.

Ellen H. Flottman, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Fernando Bermudez, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CRANE, C.J., SIMON, J., and BLACKMAR, Senior Judge.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Billy D. Williams, appeals from his concurrent sentences as a prior offender of twenty years for rape, § 566.030 RSMo. 1994, and five years for sexual abuse in the first degree, § 566.100 RSMo.1994.

This appeal is consolidated with an appeal from the denial of appellant’s Rule 29.15 motion. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. Rule 30.25. The denial of appellant’s Rule 29.15 motion is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Glenn Allen BURROW, Appellant. Glenn Allen BURROW, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 55924, 57595.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

June 19, 1990.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 26, 1990.

Application to Transfer Denied Sept. 11, 1990.

Scott William Dixon, St. Louis, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., M. Melissa Manda, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

*510ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Glen Allen Burrow, appeals from the judgments of conviction, after a jury trial, of murder in the first degree, armed criminal action, robbery in the first degree, and armed criminal action. He was sentenced as a prior offender to life imprisonment without parole; a concurrent term of imprisonment of 30 years; a consecutive term of life imprisonment; and a term of imprisonment of 30 years, consecutive to the two life terms but concurrent with the other 30 year term.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by written opinion on this direct appeal. The judgments of conviction are affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

Movant, Glen Allen Burrow, also appeals from the denial, after a hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. A written opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
IN THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, LAKELAND, FLORIDA

August 1, 2014

WILLIAM SPENCE, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D13-2297 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) Appellee. ) ________________________________ )

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Appellee's motion for clarification and to recall mandate issu ed on June 3, 2014, is granted. See § 43.44, Fla. Stat. (2014). The prior opinion dated May 9, 2014, is withdrawn, and the attached opi nion is issued in its place.

I HEREBY CERTIFY T HE FOREGOING IS A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL COURT ORDER.

JAMES BIRKHOLD, CLERKNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

WILLIAM SPENCE, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D13-2297 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ________________________________ )

Opinion filed August 1, 2014. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Philip J. Federico, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Simone A. Lennon, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Wendy Buffington, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

KELLY, Judge.

William Spence was convicted of various offenses but on appea l he challenges only his conviction for driving while his license wa s permanently revoked, in- 2 - violation of section 322.341, Florida Statutes (2010). He argu es that he is entitled to a new trial on this charge because the trial court failed to give a jury instruction on the necessarily included lesser offen se of no valid driver's licens e. We agree. A trial court commits reversible error when it fails to give a jury instruction on a necessarily included lesser offense when the defendant req uests it. See Hagood v. State, 824 So. 2d 252, 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (citing State v. Wimberly, 498 So. 2d 929, 932 (Fla. 1986) ("The trial judge has no discretion in whe ther to instruct the jury on a necessarily lesser included offense.")). Recognizing the jur y's pardon power, the supreme court has stated that, " '[t]he failure to instruct on the next immediate lesser included offense (one step removed) constitutes error that is p er se reversible.' " Sanders v. State, 946 So. 2d 953, 957 (Fla. 2006) (quoting Redd ick v. State , 394 So. 2d 417, 418 (Fla. 1981)). Because the crime of no valid driver’s license is a necessarily included lesser of driving while license is permanently revoked , see Sorrell v. State, 855 So. 2d 1253, 1256 n.5 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), the trial court erre d in failing to give the instruction. The defense repeatedly objected when the trial co urt stated during the charge conference that it was no t going to give an instruction on the lesser offense. Therefore, the issue was preserved for appellate review. Accordingly, we reverse Spence's conviction for driving while license is permanently revoked and remand for a new trial on that count. We affirm Spence's remaining convictions and sentences. Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

WALLACE and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.