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-2018-0025-5805

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
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Michael D. Queen, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Universal Capital Management, Inc.;

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 periods presented in this report;



4.

The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are 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 our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us 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 our 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 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.

The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the 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 control 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 control over financial reporting.



Date:  December 14, 2012



/s/ Michael D. Queen

Michael D. Queen

Principal Financial Officer
Unassociated Document


 


Exhibit 4.2


 


 


 


AMENDMENT


TO THE


TEGAL CORPORATION


 


2007 INCENTIVE AWARD PLAN


 







 


Pursuant to the authority reserved to the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Committee”) of Tegal Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), under Section 15.01 of the Tegal Corporation 2007 Incentive Award Plan (the “Plan”), the Committee hereby amends the Plan as follows, subject to approval by the stockholders of the Company:


 


1.      Section 3.01of the Plan is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:


 


Subject to Article 12 and Section 3.1(b), the aggregate number of shares of Stock which may be issued or transferred pursuant to Awards under the Plan is the sum of (i) 1,000,000 shares and (ii) any shares of Stock which as of the Effective Date are available for issuance under any of the Prior Plans, or are subject to awards under the Prior Plans which are forfeited or lapse unexercised and which following the Effective Date are not issued under the Prior Plans; provided, however, no more than 1,000,000 shares of Stock may be issued upon the exercise of Incentive Stock Options.


 


2.      Section 3.03 of the Plan is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:


 


Limitation on Number of Shares Subject to Awards.  Notwithstanding any provision in the Plan to the contrary, and subject to Article 12, the maximum number of shares of Stock with respect to one or more Awards that may be granted to any one Participant during any calendar year shall be 500,000 and the maximum amount that may be paid in cash during any calendar year with respect to any Performance-Based Award (including, without limitation, any Performance Bonus Award) shall be $500,000.


 


3.      The foregoing amendment shall be submitted for approval at the annual meeting of the stockholders of the Company scheduled for March 24, 2011, or any postponement or adjournment thereof. The provisions of this amendment shall be presented to the stockholders in such format as shall be approved by the Secretary of the Company.


 


I hereby certify that the foregoing amendment to the Plan was duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company as of February 14, 2011.








	  	
TEGAL CORPORATION


	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	  	
By:

	
/s/ Christine Hergenrother

	  	  
	  	  	
Christine Hergenrother


	  	  	
Secretary
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 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of GeoGlobal Resources Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2010, I, Paul B. Miller, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 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.

















/s/ Paul B. Miller


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


Paul B. Miller


President and Chief Executive Officer


April 5, 2011
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 56 (Thursday, March 23, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15300]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7150]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[ES-960-1420-00; ES-047164, Group 152, Wisconsin]


Filing of Plat of Survey; Wisconsin

    The plat of the survey of an island in the Milwaukee River, in 
section 13, Township 10 North, Range 21 East, Fourth Principal 
Meridian, Wisconsin, will be officially filed in Eastern States, 
Springfield, Virginia at 7:30 a.m., on May 1, 1995.
    The survey was requested by the District Manager, Milwaukee 
District Office, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
    All inquiries or protests concerning the technical aspects of the 
survey must be sent to the Chief Cadastral Surveyor, Eastern States, 
Bureau of Land Management, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 
22153, prior to 7:30 a.m. May 1, 1995.
    Copies of the plat will be made available upon request and 
prepayment of the reproduction fee of $2.75 per copy.

    Dated: March 14, 1995.
Stephen G. Kopach,
Chief Cadastral Surveyor.
[FR Doc. 95-7150 Filed 3-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-M
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-2018-0025-6011

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
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Appellate case name: Blake Anthony Monakino v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-14-00361-CR

Trial court case number: 1397016

Trial court: 174th Judicial District Court of Harris County

On April 16, 2015, this Court had granted appellant’s counsel’s “Motion to Abate

Appeal,” ordering the reporter to file a supplemental reporter’s record certification, and 

the trial clerk to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the amended certification

clarifying appellant’s right of appeal. On July 9, 2015, appellant filed a “Motion For

Order Requiring Clerk To Comply With This Court’s Previous Order April 16, 2015,” 

noting that only the reporter had timely complied with this Court’s Order, but that the 

trial clerk had not yet filed the requested supplemental clerk’s record.

Accordingly, appellant’s motion is GRANTED, and the trial court is ORDERED

to execute an amended certification clarifying appellant’s right of appeal, and the trial 

clerk is ORDERED to file a supplemental clerk’s record with that amended certification. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d), 34.5(c)(2). On remand, the trial court may, but does 

not need to, conduct another hearing or have appellant present or sign the certification.

The supplemental clerk’s record containing the amended certification shall be filed 

with this Court no later than 15 days from the date of this Order, if no hearing is held, or 

15 days from the date of the hearing if one is held. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(c)(2), (3). If 

the trial court holds a hearing, the court shall have a reporter record the hearing and file a 

supplemental reporter’s record with this Court within 30 days of the hearing.

Because appellant is represented by counsel, his pro se motion for an oral 

argument, filed on June 30, 2015, is DISMISSED. See Scheanette v. State, 144 S.W.3d 

503, 505 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (no entitlement to hybrid representation).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

  

Date: August 4, 2015
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Shoe Carnival, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending February 3, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I W. Kerry Jackson, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted 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.
|  

|Date: April 11, 2007 | By:                          | /s/ W. Kerry Jackson | 
|-------------------- | ---------------------------- | -------------------- | 
|                     | W. Kerry Jackson             |                     
|                     | Executive Vice President and |                     
|                     | Chief Financial Officer      |                     



---
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 13, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4947

Duravant LLC and FMH Conveyors Americas:

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 and 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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4503

Apergy ESP Systems, LLC:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20.

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

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

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 5, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 17341]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8376]



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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

USAF Scientific Advisory Board Meeting

    The USAF Scientific Advisory Board New World Vista Space Technology 
Panel and Space Applications will meet on 22-23 June 1995 at the 
Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    The purpose of the meeting is to receive briefings and have 
discussions concerning Space Technology.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with Section 
552b of Title 5, United States Code, specifically subparagraphs (1) and 
(4) thereof.
    For further information, contact the Scientific Advisory Board 
Secretariat at (703) 697-8404.
Patsy J. Conner,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-8376 Filed 4-4-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3910-01-P
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 6350** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ARTHUR LEE HAIRSTON, SR. , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the No rthern District of West Virginia , at Martinsburg

. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. ( 3:00

- cr - 00024

- JPB

- 1 )

Submitted : March 17, 2011 Decided: April 7, 2011

Before WILKINSON and SHEDD , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit

.2 PER CURIAM: Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., appeals from the district court’s order granting in part his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006) motion for reduction of sentence. On appeal, Hairston asserts that the district court abused its discretion by failing to give him a full resentencing hearing and that the district court failed to provide sufficient reasoning for the chosen sentence. We affirm. Hairston’s claim that he was entitled to a full resentencing pursuant to United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Dunphy , 551 F.3d 247, 25 1 (4th Cir.) (holding that “proceedings under § 3582(c)(2) do not constitute a full resentencing of the defendant” ) , cert. denied , 129 S. Ct. 2401 (2009), and the Supreme Court’s de cision in Dillon v. United States , 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2693 (2010) (finding that holding in Booker does not apply to § 3582(c)(2) proceedings). Accordingly, this claim is without merit. Hairston next asserts that the district court did not fully consider his circumstances prior to choosing a sentence. Under § 3582(c)(2), a district court “may reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in section § 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable.” In United States v. Legree , 205 F.3d 724, 728

- 29 (4th Cir. 2000), we held3 that there exists a presumption, absent a contrary indication in the record, that the district court considered the § 3553(a) factors in denying a § 3582(c)(2) motion. Here, the record provides no support for Hairston’s assertions that the district court failed to properly consider his motion; accordingly, we presume that the court’s consideration of the appropriate factors was sufficient. See also United States v. Evans , 587 F.3d 667, 674 (5th Cir. 2009) (hol ding that court is not required to state findings of fact and conclusions of law when denying § 3582 motion), cert. denied , 130 S. Ct. 3462 (2010). Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We deny Hairston’s motions to appoint counsel , to clarify , and to order the Warden to provide writing materials

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED