alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Form of Comodato



 Exhibit 10.4 
 Form of Comodato 
 In the city of Montevideo as of
(date): ________________________ 
 ONE PARTY: 
 _______________________, at address ________________, herein represented by _____________, Identification Card ___________________, Uruguayan, acting as agent; 

AND BY THE OTHER PARTY: 

___________________, at address ____________________, herein represented by ____________________, Identification Card _______________, Uruguayan, acting
as agent. 
 WHO AGREE TO TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT UNDER COMMODATUM IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTS. 2216 AND FOLLOWING OF THE CIVIL
CODE; 
 First. The first party designated hereinafter called the lender, loans to the second party,
hereinafter called the borrower, who takes on the same terms, the following: [Description of Properties]. 

Second. This commodatum extends its effects to ____________, 20___, on which the borrower must return the good. The
aforementioned commodatum be extended automatically for periods of 12 months, and once the agreed period is terminated and when one party wants to terminate the contract shall notify the other at the expiration of the agreed period or any
extension. However, the lender reserves the right to demand the return of the above at any time, being this commodatum precarious in accordance with the provisions of art. 2237 of Civil Code. 

Third. The borrower undertakes to pay all obligations in accordance with arts. 2220 and following of the Civil Code, being
responsible for the inputs that the property holds.







 Fourth. The parties specifically state that the property must be returned in its current
condition that the borrower knows and accepts and in case improvements or reparations of any kind were made, will be at the sole benefit of the lender. 
 Fifth. The parties declare address for legal purposes for this contract, those previously mentioned. 
 Sixth. The parties agree that who breaches contract will fall without any notification. 
 Seventh. For the record, once read the parties so issue and sign in two identical copies in the place and date mentioned.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                          CMC SECURITIES CORPORATION II
         SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT
       (EXCLUDES PRIVATELY-OFFERED MPCS TOTALING $217,198,748 AT ISSUANCE)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   AMOUNT OF BENEFICIAL
   MPC SERIES                 NAME AND ADDRESS                        OWNERSHIP                                    PERCENTAGE
   REFERENCE                OF BENEFICIAL OWNER                   (PRINCIPAL AT 2/25/01)                           OF SERIES
----------------  -----------------------------------------  ------------------------------------                 ------------
<S>               <C>                                        <C>                                                  <C>
1993-2A           Cede & Co.                                                 $17,710,894                               89.9988%
                  P.O. Box 20
                  Bowling Green Station
                  New York, NY  10004

1993-2C           Teachers Insurance & Annuity                               $53,510,923                               89.9153%
                  Association of America
                  Securities Division, Mail Stop 41
                  730 Third Avenue, 4th Fl
                  New York, NY  10017

                  CMI Investors 3LP                                           $5,772,287                                9.6993%
                  1000 Harbor Blvd., 8th Fl
                  Weehawken, NJ  07087

1993-2D           Cede & Co.                                                 $30,862,312                               91.4800%
                  (see above)

1993-2E           Cede & Co.                                                 $89,148,831                               99.1143%
                  (see above)

1993-2G           Teachers Insurance & Annuity                               $94,653,561                               99.6557%
                  Association of America
                  (see above)

1995-A            Cede & Co.                                                 $19,973,434                              100.0000%
                  (see above)

1996-A            Cede & Co.                                                 $17,564,018                              100.0000%
                  (see above)

1996-B            Cede & Co.                                                 $34,182,884                              100.0000%
                  (see above)

1996-C            Cede & Co.                                                 $23,508,778                               99.9996%
                  (see above)
</TABLE>
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-4521

CW Bearing USA, Inc:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20.

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

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

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
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-2018-0025-4060

SPM Flow Control, Inc. DBA Weir SPM:

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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-02-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-04-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-02-1997
<CASH>                                          14,267
<SECURITIES>                                     2,352
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,572
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     30,737
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                92,313
<PP&E>                                          86,025
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,223
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 153,904
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,621
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           503
<OTHER-SE>                                     130,177
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   153,904
<SALES>                                        242,101
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               242,101
<CGS>                                           99,545
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   99,545
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                84,545
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 58,723
<INCOME-TAX>                                    24,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             34,424
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    34,424
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.01
        

</TABLE>
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-2018-0025-4321

Elo Touch Solutions, 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/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_5-30-2019.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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          15,697
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   91,864
<ALLOWANCES>                                    13,367
<INVENTORY>                                    115,979
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               259,331
<PP&E>                                         561,047
<DEPRECIATION>                               (228,543)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 663,570
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          221,597
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           135
<OTHER-SE>                                      68,421
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   663,570
<SALES>                                        714,115
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               714,115
<CGS>                                          611,629
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  611,629
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,903
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   997
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,726
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 37,074
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,622
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             22,452
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,296)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,156
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.56


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6964
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus NATHANIEL MICHAEL STOKELY, a/k/a Jemar Abrams, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (CR-91-466-A, CA-96-471-AM) Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: November 25, 1997 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathaniel Michael Stokely, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Edward Rich, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Stokely , Nos. CR-91-466-A; CA-96-471-AM (E.D. Va. July 15, 1997). See Lindh v. Murphy , 521 U.S. ___, 65 U.S.L.W. 4557 (U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). We dispense withoral 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
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7748
CHARLES ROBIN WOODS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus FRANK SIZER, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA97-691-CCB) Submitted: February 26, 1998 Decided: March 20, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Robin Woods, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, David Jonathan Taube, Assistant Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court'sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Woods v. Sizer , No. CA-97-691-CCB (D. Md. Nov. 19, 1997). 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.

DISMISSED
#### Maxine BOYD, Employee/Appellant, v. SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, Employer, and Missouri State Treasurer Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Respondent.

No. 65118.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

June 14, 1994.

Rehearing Denied July 28, 1994.

Harry J. Nichols, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Cara Lee Harris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Springfield, for respondent.

Before GRIMM, P.J., and CARL R. GAERTNER and AHRENS, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Maxine Boyd appeals from a decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denying her claim for benefits for permanent total disability from the Second Injury Fund.

*333No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. 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 of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
**EXHIBIT32**

 

Date:  May 2, 2005

 

**Certificationpursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of Eastern American Natural Gas Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2004, as amended by the Annual Report onForm 10-K/A as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity butsolely as the successor trustee of the Trust (effective January 1, 2005),certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:

 

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust at the dates andfor the period presented.

 

The above certificationis furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as aseparate disclosure document.

 

 
|              | JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,  N.A.,                     |
|-------------------|-------------------------------------------------|
|              | Trustee for Eastern  American Natural Gas Trust |
|              |                                            |   |
|              |                                            |   |
| Date: May 2, 2005 | By:                                             | /s/ Mike Ulrich |
|              |                                            | Senior Vice President |
|              |                                            | JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. |

 

 

8

----
#### Robert J. DOUGH, f/k/a Robert J. Dougherty, Appellant, v. Susan Marie MISSEY, f/k/a Susan Marie Dougherty, Respondent.

No. 67272.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

Oct. 17, 1995.

David W. Suddarth, Mueller & Suddarth, Troy, for appellant.

William W. Cheeseman, Troy, for respondent.

Before SMITH, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and RHODES, JJ.

*MEMORANDUM DECISION*

PER CURIAM.

Father appeals from the trial court order increasing father’s child support obligation and denying father’s cross-motion for transfer of custody. The judgment is reviewable under Rule 73.01, is supported by substantial evidence, and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears and an opinion would have no precedential value.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
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-2018-0025-3953

Academy, Ltd:

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
Order filed November 18, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00375-CR

____________

FRANK JAMES DISTEFANO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 338th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1402036

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due June 30, 2014. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.1. On August 12, 2014, this court ordered the court reporter to file the 

record within 30 days. On September 11, 2014, the court reporter notified the 

court that no payment arrangements had been made for the record. On September 

22, 2014, the court reporter notified the court that payment arrangements had been 

made. The court extended the due date to October 20, 2014 because we received 
proof of payment. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the 

reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Patricia Palmer, the substitute court reporter, to file the record in 

this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. No further extension will be 

entertained. The trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that 

the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). If Patricia 

Palmer does not timely file the record as ordered, we will issue an order directing 

the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the reason for the failure to file the 

record.

PER CURIAM