alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 11, 1995)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 2675]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-846]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / 
Presidential Documents

[[Page 2675]]


                Presidential Determination No. 95-13 of December 31, 
                1994

                
Determination Pursuant to Section 2(c)(1) of the 
                Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962, as 
                Amended

                Memorandum for the Secretary of State

                Pursuant to section 2(c)(1) of the Migration and 
                Refugee Assistance Act of 1962, as amended, 22 U.S.C. 
                2601(c)(1), I hereby determine that it is important to 
                the national interest that up to $4,000,000 be made 
                available from the U.S. Emergency Refugee and Migration 
                Assistance Fund to meet the urgent and unexpected needs 
                of Haitian and Cuban migrants. These funds may be used 
                as necessary to cover costs related to the Haitian and 
                Cuban migration programs, including related Department 
                of State administrative expenses.

                You are authorized and directed to inform the 
                appropriate committees of the Congress of this 
                determination and the obligation of funds under this 
                authority and to publish this memorandum in the Federal 
                Register.

                    (Presidential Sig.)<Clinton1><Clinton2>

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, December 31, 1994.

[FR Doc. 95-846
Filed 1-9-95; 3:02 pm]
Billing code 4710-10-M
Specimen of Common Stock Certificate





 

 









 The within-named Corporation will furnish without charge to each stockholder who so requests
the powers, designations, preferences and relative, participating, optional, or other special rights of each class of stock of the Corporation and each series thereof and the qualifications, limitations or restrictions of such preferences and/or
rights. 
 The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be
construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: 
  

															
	 TEN COM
	  	– as tenants in common	  		  	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT–	 	 	 	Custodian	 	 
	 TEN ENT
	  	– as tenants by the entireties	  		  		 	(Cust)	 		 	(Minor)
	 JT TEN
	  	– as joint tenants with right	  		  		 	under Uniform Gifts to Minors
		  	   of survivorship and not as	  		  		 	 Act
	 	 	 	
		  	   tenants in common	  		  		 		 		 	 (State)
	 	

  
 Additional abbreviations may
also be used though not in the above list. 
 For value received,
                                         
                                         
               hereby sell, assign and transfer unto 
  

							
	PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE	 		 		 	
	 			
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
				
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE
				
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
				
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
			
	 	 	 	 	 Shares

		
	 of the common stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint
	 	 
				
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

 Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the
within-named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises. 
  

			
	 Dated,
	  	 

  

 

			
		 	 
	NOTICE:  	 	 THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE, IN EVERY
PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.



 SIGNATURE(S) GUARANTEED:
Exhibit 31.1

SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302(a) CERTIFICATION

I, Scott D. McDowell, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this 10-QSB for the period ending May 31, 2007, of Bulldog Financial, 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 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) 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 registrant's 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 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:   July 26, 2007 | SCOTT D. McDOWELL                                                            
|--------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                      | Scott D. McDowell
Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5186

Textron Specialized Vehicles:

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
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23.1

                        Consent of Independent Auditors

  We consent to the use of our report dated May 10, 1999, except for Note O as
to which the date is July 9, 1999, included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K
of Aseco Corporation for the year ended March 28, 1999, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements, as amended, and schedule, included in this
Form 10-K/A.

  We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 Nos. 33-66250, 33-80425, 33-89036, 333-18337) of Aseco
Corporation and Amendment No. 3 to the Registration Statement (Form S-4 No.
333-89675) of our report dated May 10, 1999, except for Note O as to which the
date is July 9, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial statements,
as amended, and schedule of Aseco Corporation included in its Annual Report
(Form 10-K, as amended by Form 10-K/A) for the year ended March 28, 1999.

                                          ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
December 28, 1999
---

---

# Exhibit 10.2

# INDEPENDENT
AUDITORS CONSENT

To the Shareholders of
Gilat Satellite Networks Ltd.

As independent public accountants for
StarBand Communications Inc., we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference to these
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-123410, 333-113932, 333-08826,
333-10092, 333-12466 and 333-12988) and Form F-3 (Registration Nos. 333-113950 and
333-12698) of our report dated January 19, 2006, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of Gilat Satellite Networks Ltd. included in this Annual Report on
Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2005.

/s/ Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C.
MAYER HOFFMAN MCCANN P.C.
Bethesda, Maryland

March 17, 2006



---

---
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION 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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Universal Truckload Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the thirteen weeks ended July 1,
2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Donald B. Cochran, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Robert E. Sigler, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, respectively, that (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, 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: August 4, 2006 |  |                                                                 
|                     | 
|                     |  | /s/ Donald B. Cochran                                           
|                     |  | Donald B. Cochran                                               
|                     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer                           
|                     | 
|                     |  | /s/ Robert E. Sigler                                            
|                     |  | Robert E. Sigler                                                
|                     |  | Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being
filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
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-2018-0025-5739

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
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form




10-Q/A

of Universal Capital Management, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended January 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael D. Queen, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to 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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/ Michael D. Queen

Michael D. Queen

President (Principal Executive Officer)

March




25,

 2008
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7251

PAUL ED NEWTON, a/k/a Paul E. Newton,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

G. K. WASHINGTON, Warden; BUCKINGHAM

CORRECTIONAL CENTER,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-01-477-7)

Submitted: November 5, 2002 Decided: December 4, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul Ed Newton, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Paul Ed Newton seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find

Newton has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal for the

reasons stated by the district court. See Newton v. Washington,

No. CA-01-477-7 (W.D. Va. Aug. 5, 2002). 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
**EXHIBIT 31.2**I, Louis Ploth, Jr., certify that:     1. I have reviewed this annual report of Zonagen, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:          (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;          (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee 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 ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Dated: March 13, 2006 By:  /s/ Louis Ploth, Jr.    Louis Ploth, Jr.    Vice President, Business Development and
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Leroy BRAY, Appellant.

No. WD 41045.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 1, 1989.

Kathy Matthews, Kansas City, for appellant.

Albert A. Riederer, Pros. Atty., Robert Frager, Asst. Pros. Atty., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before SHANGLER, P.J., and TURNAGE and KENNEDY, JJ.

KENNEDY, Judge.

Leroy Bray appeals from a conviction upon a trial to the court of driving a motor vehicle on a Missouri highway when his driving privilege had been revoked by the Missouri Department of Revenue and had not been reinstated, section 302.321, RSMo 1986. He was sentenced to five days in jail.

At the time of his arrest Mr. Bray, who at all times pertinent hereto was a resident of Kansas, had in his possession a current Kansas driver’s license, fair on its face.

There was in evidence a Missouri Department of Revenue record showing the revocation of Mr. Bray’s driving privilege. In a *556space for “license number” the words are inserted “no license issued”.

The first point Bray makes is that only his “driving privilege” had been revoked, whereas section 302.321 applies only where both one’s “operator’s or chauffeur’s license *and*driving privilege as a resident or nonresident has been canceled, suspended or revoked”. (Emphasis added). Since only his driving privilege had been revoked, he argues, and not his license, his driving on Missouri highways was not an offense under section 302.321.

The answer to Mr. Bray’s argument is that his Kansas driver’s license had been revoked, as well as his driving privilege, insofar as the Kansas license conferred upon him an exemption (section 302.080, RSMo 1986) from the requirement that he have a Missouri driver’s license in order to drive upon Missouri’s highways. Section 302.150, RSMo 1986, provides that the driving privilege of a nonresident driver may be revoked “in like manner and for like cause as an operator’s, registered operator’s or chauffeur’s license issued hereunder”. We interpret section 302.321 so as to harmonize with the other statutes on the subject, including section 302.150. Of course, the Missouri Department of Revenue has no power to revoke generally the driver’s license of a Kansas resident; only the Kansas state authorities can do that. If appellant’s interpretation of the statute were correct, so that he could continue to drive upon Missouri highways so long as his Kansas driver’s license was current, Missouri would be left powerless to enforce its revocation of the driving privilege of a nonresident. Such a result is not consonant with the statutory scheme.

Appellant next claims that article IV, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States requires that “full faith and credit” be given to the Kansas driver’s license, and that appellant’s possession of a valid driver’s license entitles him to drive upon Missouri’s highways even though his driving privilege had been revoked, as described above. The appellant does not cite any cases which support this novel proposition and we reject his claim. *See Louisiana Board of Pharmacy v. Smith,*226 La. 537, 76 So.2d 722, 726 (1954).

Judgment affirmed.

All concur.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Charles HARRY, Appellant. Charles HARRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 63143.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Nov. 1, 1994.

Robert E. Steele, Jr., St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David G. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Charles Hairy, appeals from his conviction for involuntary manslaughter and armed criminal action in St. Louis County Circuit Court, and from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgments of the circuit court are based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. As we further find an extended opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm the circuit court’s judgments pursuant to Rules 84.16(b) and 30.25(b). A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties here involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.