alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   | (1)   | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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. |
|--------|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                           |   |                                                  |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date: March 29,      2010 |   | /s/ RAYMOND P. WARRELL,      JR., M.D.*               |   |
|                           |   | Name: Raymond      P. Warrell, Jr., M.D.         |   |
|                           |   | Title: Chairman      and Chief Executive Officer |   |

----
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. George CUMPTON, Appellant.

No. WD 51005.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

May 21, 1996.

James C. Cox, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Mary Moulton Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before LOWENSTEIN, P.J., and HANNA and SPINDEN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from his conviction, by a jury, of one count of kidnapping, § 565.110, RSMo 1994, one count of tampering in the first degree, § 569.080(2), RSMo 1994, and one count of the unlawful use of a weapon, § 571.030(4), RSMo 1994. Affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
```

                                                                                                       EXHIBIT 21.1
                                                                                                       ------------

                                       SUBSIDIARIES OF U.S. CAN CORPORATION

------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
Name                                  Place of Organization               Trade Name
----                                  ---------------------               ----------
------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
United States Can Company             State of Delaware, U.S.A.           U.S. Can
------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
USC May Verpackungen Holding, Inc.    State of Delaware, U.S.A.           n/a
------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
U.S.C. Europe N.V.                    Netherlands Antilles                n/a
------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
U.S.C. Europe Netherlands B.V.        Netherlands                         n/a
------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
Note:  U.S.C. Europe Netherlands B.V. has nine foreign subsidiaries engaged in metal can manufacturing in Europe,
----
and also owns 36.5% of Formametal S.A., an Argentine metal can manufacturer.
```
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4485

CW Bearing USA, 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/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 17, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-10499

Varex Imaging Corporation: 

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/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September.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
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-2018-0025-6123

Invacare Corp:

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

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6135

SA Recycling LLC:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
#### Bertha Mineral Company *v.*Simpson.

Beck, P. J.

1. “ Possession of land under a claim of ownership being prima facie evidence of title in the occupant, the latter, upon proof of such possession, and without showing complete title, may maintain against a wrong-doer an action for a trespass upon the property, com-

mitted while such possession existed.” *Tolbert*v. *City of Rome,*134 *Ga.*136 (67 S. E. 540).

2. Error is assigned upon the following charge of the court: “In other words, gentlemen, at the time the Bertha Mineral Company cut the timber, if you find that they did cut it, in order for the plaintiff to be entitled to recover, he must have made it appear in this case that he was in actual possession of the land at the time the Bertha Mineral Company cut it, and it must appear to the jury from the evidence in thai\ case that the Bertha Mineral Company did not have any right to enter upon the land and cut the timber, that they did so wrongfully and without any right to do so.” This charge is excepted to on the ground, first, that the charge should have contained the additional instruction that before the jury could find for the plaintiff, they must find that the latter was in actual possession of that particular portion of the land upon which the trespass complained of was alleged to have been committed; and second, that the charge was error for the additional reason that the plaintiff abandoned any claim to recover for any act of trespass committed upon that portion of the land described in the petition which was covered by the grants introduced in evidence by the defendant. *Held,*that the exceptions to the portion of the charge last quoted clearly fall within the rule frequently stated, that where a part of a charge as given is correct and proper in itself, an *673exception to the same on the ground that additional instructions claimed by the movant to be appropriate were not given is without merit.

No. 3193.

December 15, 1922.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Higbsmith. Camden superior court. February 18, 1922.

*S. JJ.*Townsend, for plaintiff in error.

*Cowart & Vocelle,*contra.

3. Where suit is brought for damages resulting from alleged trespass upon the tract or lot of land from which certain trees were cut and removed, this being the alleged act of trespass, it is not necessary that the plaintiff should show and the verdict should set forth the particular part of the tract of land from which the trees were cut; but as to this feature of the case it suffices that the plaintiff show by a preponderance of evidence that the trees were upon some part of the tract of land described in the petition and of which plaintiff had possession bona fide, under a claim of right, at the time of the alleged trespass. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### Judith BECHTOLD, Individually, and as Personal Representative of Stephen E. Bechtold, and as Next Friend of Brent W. Bechtold, Chad A. Bechtold, Melissa J. Bechtold, Elizabeth Tamewitz, as Personal Representative of Her Deceased Mother, Nina Trisler, Phyllis Goodman, as Personal Representative of Her Deceased Husband, Charles Goodman, Jr., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Defendants/Respondents.

No. 67517.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

April 9, 1996.

George Owen Suggs, St. Louis, for appellants.

Mark G. Arnold, St. Louis, for respondents.

Before CRAHAN, P.J., and CRANDALL and DOWD, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, individually and as personal representative of Stephen Bechtold, appeals an adverse judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict on her claims for wrongful death and loss of consortium based on Mr. Bechtold’s exposure to polychlorinated biphenals (“PCBs”) manufactured by Monsanto. Plaintiffs points on appeal assign error to the trial court’s rulings excluding and limiting expert testimony, entry of a directed verdict on her claim of fraud, and alleged improper instructions to the jury. We affirm.

*128We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
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-2018-0025-6068

Kyungshin Lear Sales and Engineering 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 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
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

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

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                           Period Ended                Period Ended
                                                                        September 30, 1998           September 30, 1997

                                                                           Three Months                  Three Months

<S>                                                                      <C>                          <C>
Weighted average number of share outstanding                                18,482,440                     15,519,577

Total common and common equivalent shares                                   19,919,107                     16,864,440

Net Income for the period                                                  $   255,906                    $   758,983

Weighted average number of share outstanding                                18,482,440                     15,519,577

Earnings per share - basic                                                 $      0.01                    $      0.05

Net Income for the period                                                  $   255,906                    $   758,983

Total common and common equivalent shares                                   19,919,107                     16,864,440

Earnings per share - fully diluted                                         $      0.01                    $      0.05

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.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, James W. Klingler certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed thisreport on Form 10-Q of TROY Group, Inc.;

 

2.             Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.             Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.             The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)           designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)           evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)           disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.             The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a)           all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b)           any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date:  July 15, 2004 | /s/James W. Klingler                  |   |
|--------------------------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                           | James W. Klingler                     |
|                           | Vice President-Finance, Treasurer and |
|                           | Chief Financial Officer               |

 

----
#### KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. John Michael GOODHUE, Respondent.

No. 91-SC-29-KB.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

April 11, 1991.

David L. Yewell, President, Kentucky Bar Ass’n, Owensboro, for complainant.

John Michael Goodhue, Nashville, Tenn., for respondent.

ORDER

Upon motion of the Kentucky Bar Association pursuant to SCR 3.435, an Order was entered by this Court on February 7, 1991 for respondent to inform the Court and show cause on or before March 27, 1991 why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, and no response to the Order having been filed,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Kentucky for a period of one (1) year, effective upon entry of this Order, said suspension being the identical discipline imposed upon respondent by Order entered October 2, 1990 by the Supreme Court of Tennessee.

ENTERED: 4-11-91

/s/ Robert F, Stephens Chief Justice
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-2018-0025-4711

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