alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NEW 2018 Q4 NEW 2018 Q4

FINAL PRODUCT

NEW
Applica Water Products LLC is a very small, family-owned and operated, manufacturer of water

filtration systems and sell under our CLEAR2O® brand. We source manufacture our own

designs and sell water filtration systems as our only line of business, we are headquartered in

Miramar, Florida.

Currently, 100% percent of our water filtration products are sourced from China. Of which, 90%

of those imported water filtration products & filters are only available from China due to the

location of our owned-tooling placed with 3rd party China manufacturers.

At present, our design & formulation is unique and thus comparable products are not available

in the US or from other countries. Additionally, major infrastructure changes need to be

implemented to facilitate reasonable priced products for the overall water filtration industry.

Currently, the USA and other countries lack the equipment infrastructure to cost-effectively

manufacture those parts needed to complete our line of products.

Applica Water Products LLC will experience an economic hardship due to the additional ad

valorem of 25 percent on all water filtration parts from China. Based on the annual volume of all

combined water filtration parts and accessories, the total tariffs on the next rounds of

containers will result in an immediate reduction of our net profits before taxes by a significant

amount. As a result, this event will cause a reduction in jobs, sales jobs, access to financing

options and / or higher financing costs.

As a small business in the water filtration industry, it will not be competitive to increase

consumer prices to mitigate the cost of tariffs. Price increases will result in the loss of long-term

and new customers. We are operating on a shoe-string budget. So, any internal cost cutting

will severely impact our daily operations. The long-term impact of these untimely tariffs will

result in net losses for our company, which ultimately reduces healthy competition in the water

filtration industry.

Our water filtration parts and accessories are not a part of the Made in China 2025.

In summary, we sincerely request that your office approves the exclusion of tariffs for Applica

Water Products LLC due to this untimely economic hardship.

Sincerely,

Keith Bernard

President

Applica Water Products LLC

954-998-1909

Keith.bernard@applicawater.com

www.clear2o.com
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, D. Keith Grossman, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of Conceptus, Inc., a Delaware corporation;
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 26, 2013



|                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ D. KEITH GROSSMAN                                  
|D. Keith Grossman
President and Chief Executive Officer
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-2018-0025-4080

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
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-2018-0025-5935

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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 28, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15911]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7542]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP95-268-000]


Koch Gateway Pipeline Co.; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

March 21, 1995.
    Take notice that on March 17, 1995, as supplemented on March 21, 
1995, Koch Gateway Pipeline Company (Koch), P.O. Box 1478, Houston, 
Texas 77251-1478, filed in Docket No. CP95-268-000 a request pursuant 
to Secs. 157.205 and 157.211 of the Commission's Regulations under the 
Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205 and 157.211) for approval to construct 
and operate approximately three miles of six-inch pipeline and a meter/
regulator station delivery tap located in DeSoto Parish, Louisiana for 
delivery of natural gas to International Paper (IP), an end-user, 
pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), all as more 
fully set forth in the request which is on file with the Commission and 
open to public inspection.
    Koch requests authorization to construct and operate approximately 
15,700 feet of six-inch pipeline and a six-inch meter/regulator station 
which will connect with Koch's 24-inch Carthage-Sterlington line near 
Mansfield, Louisiana. Koch states these facilities are required to 
comply with the terms of a transportation agreement with IP to provide 
it with 20,000 MMBtu of interruptible service on a peak day.
    Koch indicates that it is authorized to provide interruptible 
transportation to IP in Docket No. ST95-86-000. Koch states that it 
provides such transportation to IP pursuant to Koch's blanket 
certificate in Docket No. CP88-6-000. Koch also indicates that the 
volumes delivered are within IP's certificated entitlement and that 
Koch's tariff does not prohibit the construction or operation of the 
proposed facilities. Koch further indicates that it has sufficient 
capacity to accomplish the deliveries without detriment or disadvantage 
to its other customers. It is indicated that the estimated cost of 
construction is $640,000.
    Any person or the Commission's Staff may, within 45 days of the 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.214), a motion to intervene and pursuant to Sec. 157.205 of the 
regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activities shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, 
the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-7542 Filed 3-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
ex10_4.htm




Exhibit 10.4







FORM OF


LETTER AGREEMENT


FOR AWARD UNDER


AMCOL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION


2010 CASH INCENTIVE PLAN







< DATE >







< First Name, MI, Last Name >







Dear < First Name >:







Congratulations! At a recent meeting, the Compensation Committee of AMCOL International Corporation’s Board of Directors (the “Committee”) granted you an award under AMCOL’s 2010 Cash Incentive Plan (the “Plan”). This letter (the “Letter”) sets forth the terms and conditions of that award (the “Award”). The Award is also subject to the provisions of the Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto. Any capitalized term used in this Letter and not defined shall have the meaning set forth in the Plan.







In general, the amount of your Award is expressed as a Target Bonus, which is the amount you may earn if the Performance Goals specified in this Letter are achieved at the 100% level and the Committee does not determine to reduce or eliminate your Award. The amount payable under your Award may be more or less than your Target Bonus, depending on the level of performance achieved and the Committee’s discretion to award a lesser amount; but in no event will your Award exceed the Maximum Bonus. The Committee’s determination of the level of achievement of the Performance Goals, and the ultimate amount of the Award, shall be final and binding on you.







1.           Threshold, Target and Maximum Bonus.







The Threshold Bonus, Target Bonus and Maximum Bonus are set forth on Schedule A hereto.







2.           Performance Period.







The “Performance Period” for this Award is set forth on Schedule A hereto.







3.           Performance Goals.







The “Performance Goals” with respect to this Award are described on Schedule A hereto. Payouts are interpolated for performance falling in between established Performance Goals.







4.           Payment of Award.







Unless properly deferred under the terms of the Plan, your Award, in the amount determined by the Committee, will generally be paid as soon as practicable following the completion of the Performance Period and the Committee’s determination and certification of the amount payable. AMCOL may withhold from any Award amounts sufficient to satisfy applicable withholding requirements under any federal, state or local law. Please note that under Section 3.4 of the Plan, the Committee has the discretion to reduce or eliminate an Award under the Plan for any reason.






  





1











  








If you have additional questions about this award, please contact Oksana Waters at 847-851-1664 (oksana.waters@amcol.com) or Ed McCann at 847-851-1658 (ed.mccann@amcol.com).







Sincerely,












Larry Washow


President & CEO


 


 


2
#### Demetris W. FLUCAS, Defendant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent.

No. 67275.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Aug. 29, 1995.

Dave Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

*127Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and WHITE, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial, without an evi-dentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Julio CASTELLANOS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18296.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two.

Sept. 27, 1993.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 18, 1993.

Application to Transfer Denied Nov. 23, 1993.

Thomas D. Carver, Springfield, for defendant-appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for plaintiff-respondent.

PREWITT, Judge.

Following nonjury trial defendant was found guilty of drug trafficking and sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. Defendant appeals.

Defendant’s first two points complain of the trial court failing to sustain his motion to suppress evidence of cocaine found in a motor vehicle defendant was operating on Interstate 44 in Springfield. There was no objection when this evidence was offered; thus the issue is not preserved for appellate review. *State v. Qualls,*810 S.W.2d 649, 651 (Mo.App.1991).

Gratuitous review establishes that defendant’s consent to the search was valid. Decisions of the Missouri Supreme Court are “controlling” upon this court. Mo. Const, art. V, § 2. Those decisions justified the trial court’s determination. See *State v. Hyland,*840 S.W.2d 219 (Mo. banc 1992); *State v. Cook,*854 S.W.2d 579 (Mo.App.1993). Points one and two are denied.

For his remaining point defendant asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. The vehicle which defendant was operating had stored in a hidden compartment thirty individually wrapped packages of cocaine weighing more than 31,000 grams. Defendant had driven the van from California to Springfield. The arresting officer smelled a very strong odor of deodorizers or air freshener. Defendant told the officer that he had been to California to visit his mother in the hospital but could not recall the hospital or the city where it was located. Defendant admitted that he initially gave the officer a name not his own and that the identification papers he was carrying and had given the officer were false.

There is no merit to this point under our supreme court’s holding in *State v. Villa-Perez,*835 S.W.2d 897 (Mo. banc 1992). *Cf.*also *State v. Garza,*853 S.W.2d 462 (Mo.App.1993).

The judgment is affirmed.

FLANIGAN, P.J., and CROW, J., concur.
~ltZ4S lZS-!5

X^ T^Vve Courf q£ tr^motl Appals

ORIGINAL

\Swqm^T Bc^i ^HrfeS RECEIVED SW _, . a ro ' Se COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAIS

SEP 16 2015

FILED IN yc Abel Acosta, Clerk

COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS

SEP 16 2015 Yl^ ^^ °^ Te^S

Abel Acosta, Clerk K£^po(N^ei/3r

©* Pe*iV,o-v TV b^cre+ror^c/ M^ -fro**- 4rU A$U UWV

CourV o-C- Apf^ W Pty(W No. ^-ccd**-* ? p^oo^b'% >w^**^

^ ^uA^^Jr <£ ^vi HsWi^ c^ ^ MU £o^r, Te**
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 66 (Thursday, April 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 17532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8456]

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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Ocean Freight Forwarder License Revocations

    Notice is hereby given that the following ocean freight forwarder 
licenses have been revoked by the Federal Maritime Commission pursuant 
to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. app. 1718) and the 
regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of ocean 
freight forwarders, 46 CFR 510.

License Number: 2881
Name: T.G. International, Inc.
Address: 950 Threadneedle, Ste. 140, Houston, TX 77079
Date Revoked: March 8, 1995
Reason: Failed to furnish a valid surety bond.

License Number: 3365
Name: Jacky Maeder Ltd.
Address: 1414 Calcon Hook Rd, #204, Sharon Hill, PA 19079
Date Revoked: March 10, 1995
Reason: Surrendered license voluntarily.

License Number: 1241
Name: Randy International, Ltd.
Address: 590 Belleville Turnpike, #26, Kearny, NJ 07032
Date Revoked: March 10, 1995
Reason: Surrendered license voluntarily.

License Number: 3822
Name: Freight Brokers International, Inc.
Address: 1235 North Loop West, Ste. 601, Houston, TX 77008
Date Revoked: March 15, 1995
Reason: Failed to furnish a valid surety bond.

License Number: 3422
Name: The Myers Group (U.S.), Inc.
Address: 72 Lake Street, Rouses Point, New York 12979
Date Revoked: March 17, 1995
Reason: Surrendered license voluntarily.
Bryant L. VanBrakle,
Director, Bureau of Tariffs, Certification and Licensing.
[FR Doc. 95-8456 Filed 4-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
```
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44437

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

LLOYD RAY WEHRLI,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 566

Filed: August 31, 2017

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Jerome County. Hon. G. Richard Bevan, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and consecutive unified sentences of twelve years, with 

three and one-half years determinate, for two counts of sexual abuse of a child 

under the age of sixteen, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Lloyd Ray Wehrli pled guilty to two counts of sexual abuse of a child under the age of 

sixteen years, Idaho Code §§ 18-1506, 19-304(2). The district court imposed consecutive unified 

sentences of twelve years, with three and one-half years determinate. Wehrli appeals, 

contending that his sentences are excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-
2

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Wehrli’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 66 (Thursday, April 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 17532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8457]



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


FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Security for the Protection of the Public in Demnification of 
Passengers for Nonperformance of Transportation; Notice of Issuance of 
Certificate (Performance)

    Notice is hereby given that the following have been issued a 
Certificate of Financial Responsibility for Indemnification of 
Passengers for Nonperformance of Transportation pursuant to the 
provisions of Section 3, Public law 89-777 (46 U.S.C. 817(e)) and the 
Federal Maritime Commission's implementing regulations at 46 CFR part 
540, as amended: Radison Seven Seas Cruises, Inc. and Diamond Cruise, 
Inc., 600 Corporate Drive, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33334.

Vessel: Radison Diamond.

    Dated: April 3, 1995.
Joseph C. Polking,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-8457 Filed 4-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5270

Arrowhead Electrical Products, Inc:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20. 

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

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

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

only from China.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Paul A. Parisotto,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q of Blacksands Petroleum,  Inc., for the fiscal quarter ended
July 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and that the  information  contained in the
Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q fairly  presents  in all  material  respects  the
financial   condition  and  results  of  operations  of  Blacksands   Petroleum,
Inc.



|Date:    May 6, 2009 |                                                | By:/s/ Paul A. Parisotto
|-------------------- | ---------------------------------------------- | ------------------------
|                     | Paul A. Parisotto, Principal Executive Officer
|                     |                                                |