alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5526

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
****

**MOTOR MODEL: FFN20**

# image1.jpeg

# image2.jpeg

# image3.jpeg

# image4.png

# image5.png
Amendment No. 1 to The Finish Line, Inc. 2009 Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.28 

AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 

TO THE FINISH LINE, INC. 2009 INCENTIVE PLAN 

Pursuant to rights reserved under Section 13.1 of The Finish Line, Inc. 2009 Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), the Board of
Directors of The Finish Line, Inc. hereby amends the Plan as follows. 
  

	 	1.	The third sentence of Section 13.4(l) of the Plan, which reads “To the extent not prohibited by Section 409A of the Code, if the delayed payment consists
of cash, interest shall accrue on the delayed payment at the rate of 7% per annum and if the delayed payment consists of Stock, dividends and distributions paid with respect to such Stock shall be added to the delayed payment” is hereby
amended and restated to read in its entirety as follows: 

 “The Award subject of the delayed payment shall be
automatically transferred to the then applicable Finish Line non-qualified deferred compensation plan and be invested pursuant to the investment elections in effect for the participant pursuant to that plan.” 

 

	 	2.	All other terms and provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Amendment Number 1 has been executed to be effective as of January 21, 2010. 

 

			
	THE FINISH LINE, INC.
		
	Signature:	 	 /s/ Bill Kirkendall

	Printed Name:	 	Bill Kirkendall
	Title:	 	Director, Chairman of Compensation
		 	and Stock Option Committee
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-2018-0025-5187

Nissan North America, 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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5047 

To exempt juveniles from the requirements for suits by prisoners, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2023 

Ms. SCANLON (for herself and Mr. ARMSTRONG) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To exempt juveniles from the requirements for suits by 

prisoners, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Justice for Juveniles 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF JUVENILES FROM THE REQUIRE7 MENTS FOR SUITS BY PRISONERS. 

8 Section 7 of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Per9 sons Act (42 U.S.C. 1997e) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5047 IH

1 (1) in subsection (h), by striking ‘‘sentenced 

2 for, or adjudicated delinquent for,’’ and inserting 

3 ‘‘or sentenced for’’; and 

4 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(i) EXEMPTION OF JUVENILE PRISONERS.—This 

6 section shall not apply to an action pending on the date 

7 of enactment of the Justice for Juveniles Act or filed on 

8 or after such date if such action is— 

9 ‘‘(1) brought by a prisoner who has not at10 tained 22 years of age; or 

11 ‘‘(2) brought by any prisoner with respect to a 

12 prison condition that occurred before the prisoner 

13 attained 22 years of age.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 11, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 2699]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-701]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 228

[FRL-5137-5]


Ocean Dumping; Site Designation Technical Amendment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to the final rulemaking for 
designation of an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) offshore 
Fort Pierce, Florida. The final rule was published in the Federal 
Register on Thursday, September 2, 1993. The preamble of the Final Rule 
correctly described the location of the ODMDS. However, the regulatory 
text gave incorrect coordinates for the location of the Fort Pierce, 
Florida ODMDS. This technical amendment is necessary to correct the 
coordinates for the location of the ODMDS.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 10, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher J. McArthur, 404/347-1740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The final rule (September 2, 1993, 58 FR 46544) that is the subject 
of this correction designated an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site 
(ODMDS) offshore Fort Pierce, Florida as an EPA-approved ocean dumping 
site for the dumping of suitable dredged material. Need for Correction
    As published, the final rule contained errors in the regulatory 
text. Coordinates for the location of the Fort Pierce, Florida ODMDS 
were listed incorrectly.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228

    Water pollution control.

    Dated: December 23, 1994.

    Approved by: Patrick M. Tobin,
Acting Regional Administrator.

    In consideration of the foregoing, subchapter H of chapter I of 
title 40 is amended as set forth below.

PART 228--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 228 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1412 and 1418.

    2. Section 228.15 is to be amended by revising paragraph (h)(11)(i) 
to read as follows:


Sec. 228.15  Dumping sites designated on a final basis.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (11) * * *
    (i) Location: 27 deg.28'00'' N., 80 deg.12'33'' W.; 27 deg.28'00'' 
N., 80 deg.11'27'' W.; 27 deg.27'00'' N., 80 deg.11'27'' W.; and 
27 deg.27'00'' N., 80 deg.12'33'' W.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 95-701 Filed 1-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
#### In the Matter of Luis E. Reyes (Admitted as Luis Emilio Reyes), an Attorney, Resignor.

Second Department,

October 22,1990

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Alan L. Hirshman*for resignor.

*Robert H. Straus (Vincent J. Carroll, Jr.,*of counsel), for Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Luis E. Reyes has submitted an affidavit dated April 9,1990, wherein he tenders his resignation as an attorney and counselor-at-law (22 NYCRR 691.9). Mr. Reyes was admitted to the practice of law by the Appellate Division of the Supreme *95Court, Second Judicial Department, on June 28, 1978, under the name Luis Emilio Reyes.

Mr. Reyes acknowledges that he is currently the subject of an investigation by the Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts concerning allegations, *inter alia,*that he converted funds entrusted to him; commingled client funds with personal funds; failed to promptly pay and deliver to a client funds which the client was entitled to receive; and failed to maintain complete records of funds or to observe and comply with other required procedures to protect and preserve the identity of client funds.

Mr. Reyes acknowledges that he could not successfully defend himself on the merits against charges predicated upon the misconduct outlined in his affidavit of resignation, that his resignation is freely and voluntarily rendered, that he is not being subjected to coercion or duress, and that he is fully aware of the implications of submitting his resignation.

Under the circumstances herein, the resignation of Luis E. Reyes as a member of the Bar is accepted and directed to be filed. Accordingly, Luis E. Reyes is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective immediately.

Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the resignation of Luis E. Reyes is accepted and directed to be filed; and it is further,

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law §90, effective immediately, Luis E. Reyes is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further,

Ordered that Luis E. Reyes shall promptly comply with this court’s rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended and resigned attorneys (22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further,

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law §90, effective immediately, Luis E. Reyes is commanded to desist and refrain (1) from practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another, (2) from appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission or other public authority, (3) from giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) from holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law.
Second Amendment to the Newell Rubbermaid Inc. Management Cash Bonus Plan



 EXHIBIT 10.4 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE 

NEWELL RUBBERMAID INC. 

MANAGEMENT CASH BONUS PLAN 

The Newell Rubbermaid Inc. Management Cash Bonus Plan (the “Plan”), is further amended, effective as of
February 10, 2010, with respect to bonuses paid for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2010, as follows: 
  

	 	1.	 Section 6(c) of the Plan is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 



(c) Maximum Bonus Payment. The target and maximum annual bonus award payable to a Participant for a Plan Year is a percentage of
his Salary, based on the Participant’s participation category and the level of achievement of the performance goals, as set forth below: 
  

					
	 Participation Category
	  	 Bonus as a Percentage of Salary if
Targets
Achieved at 100% Level
	 	 Maximum Bonus as a Percentage
of
Salary

	 A/A/A
	  	130.0%	 	260.0%
	 A/A
	  	75.0%	 	150.0%
	 A/B
	  	65.0%	 	130.0%
	 A/C
	  	55.0%	 	110.0%
	 A
	  	45.0%	 	90.0%
	 B/C
	  	35.0%	 	70.0%
	 B
	  	33.5%	 	67.0%
	 C
	  	16.75%	 	33.5%
	 D
	  	8.375%	 	16.75%


Performance below the target levels will result in a lower or no bonus award. 

In no event, however, shall any Participant be paid a bonus award for any Plan Year that exceeds $2,900,000. 

This Amendment has been executed by the Corporation, by its duly authorized officer, as of this 10
th day of February, 2010. 

 

			
	NEWELL RUBBERMAID INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ James M. Sweet

	Title:	 	 Executive Vice President – Human Resources and Corporate Communications
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



In
connection with the Quarterly  Report of B Green Innovations, Inc. Inc. (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for
the period ended March 31, 2015, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certify, pursuant  to and solely for the
purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
my knowledge:



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.





|Date:
                                         May 15, 2015 | By: | /s/ Jerome Mahoney                                            
|----------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                            |     | Jerome Mahoney                                                
|                                                            |     | President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
|                                                            |     |                                                               
|                                                            |     |
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 23

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-11067, 333-15907, 333-17021, 333-23035,
333-37247, 333-37383, 333-41603, 333-58045, 333-68505, 333-76379, 333-76757,
333-82569, 333-84419, 333-88813, 333-88819 and 333-91621) and the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-79372, 333-07241, 333-11237, 333-28449,
333-74461 and 333-79737) of General Growth Properties, Inc. of our report
dated February 6, 2001 relating to the consolidated financial statements,
which appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the
incorporation by reference of our report dated February 6, 2001 relating to
the financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.

Chicago, Illinois                         PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
March 14, 2001
AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed May 12, 2014.

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01081-CR

MONIQUE NESHAE ADLEY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F11-63320-H

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Fillmore, Evans, and Lewis

Opinion by Justice Evans

Monique Neshae Adley appeals her conviction for aggravated robbery. In two issues, 

appellant contends the sentence imposed violates her constitutional rights. We affirm the trial 

court’s judgment.

Appellant pleaded guilty before a jury for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, a 

firearm. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a)(2) (West 2011). After finding appellant guilty, 

the jury assessed punishment at seven years’ imprisonment. Appellant contends the seven-year 

sentence is grossly disproportionate to the offense and inappropriate to the offender, in violation 

of the United States and Texas Constitutions. Appellant asserts she participated in the robbery 
-2-

because she was influenced by her male friends who had the firearm. She asserts that because 

she has two young children and a job awaiting her, she should have been granted probation. The 

State responds that appellant failed to preserve her complaints for appellate review and 

alternatively, the sentence cannot be characterized as being grossly disproportionate to the 

offense.

Appellant did not complain about the sentence either at the time it was imposed or in a

motion for new trial. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1); Castaneda v. State, 135 S.W.3d at 723. 

Thus, she has not preserved this issue for appellate review. Moreover, punishment that is 

assessed within the statutory range for an offense is neither excessive nor unconstitutionally 

cruel or unusual. Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769, 772 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1997, pet. ref’d); see 

also Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). Aggravated robbery is a

first-degree felony offense, punishable by imprisonment for five to ninety-nine years or life and 

an optional fine not to exceed $10,000. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.32. Appellant’s sevenyear sentence is at the bottom end of the statutory range. We conclude the sentence does not 

violate either the United States or Texas Constitution. We overrule appellant’s two issues.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/ David Evans/

DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

121081F.U05
-3-

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT

MONIQUE NESHAE ADLEY, Appellant 

No. 05-12-01081-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the Criminal District Court

No. 1 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 

F11-63320-H).

Opinion delivered by Justice Evans, 

Justices Fillmore and Lewis participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered May 12, 2014.

/ David Evans/

DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 32.01





CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







I, David DeMarco, 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 of Blacksands Petroleum, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal period ended July 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Blacksands Petroleum, Inc.





By:

/S/    DAVID DEMARCODate: September 17, 2010

Name:

David DeMarcoTitle:

Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
Case No. 6D2 3

- 415 Lower Tribunal No. CF19

- 000622

- XX

_____________________________
C ORDARRALL H ALL , Appellant
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee

.

_____________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County

. Donald G. Jacobsen , Judge.

November 28, 2023

PER CURIAM

.
AFFIRMED

.
TRAVER C

. J. , and WOZNIAK and MIZE , JJ., c oncur.

Rachael E. Reese , of O’Brien Hatfield Reese, P.A.
, Tampa , for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and David Campbell, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-21047 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ERIC L. ROHDEN, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-99-CR-298-1

-------------------- September 1, 2000 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Eric L. Rohden appeals from the judgment entered after he pleaded guilty to receipt of a firearm while under an indictment. Rohden argues that the district court erred at sentencing by failing to treat five prior Texas drug convictions as related for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2). Having reviewed his arguments, we conclude that Rohden cannot make the requisite showing that the prior cases were consolidated. See United States v. Huskey , 137 F.3d 283, 288 (5th Cir. 1998). Rohden’s reliance on LaPorte v. Texas , 840 S.W.2d 412 (Tex. Crim. App.No. 99-21047 -2- 1992) (en banc), is misplaced. See United States v. Fitzhugh , 984 F.2d 143, 147 n.18 (5th Cir. 1993). Finally, because the prior Texas convictions were unrelated for purposes of sentencing, Rohden cannot show that the district court’s denial of his motion for a downward departure was tainted by any legal

error. See § 2K2.1 cmt. 5.
AFFIRMED.
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-2018-0025-3423

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