alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 28, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15903]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7611]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[Order No. 732]


Grant of Authority for Subzone Status BASF Corporation 
(Caprolactam/Nylon-6 Resin); Freeport, TX

    Whereas, by an Act of Congress approved June 18, 1934, an Act ``To 
provide for the establishment * * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of 
entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, 
and for other purposes,'' as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u) (the Act), the 
Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) is authorized to grant to 
qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade 
zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry;
    Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR Part 400) provide for the 
establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities 
cannot serve the specific use involved;
    Whereas, an application from the Port of Freeport, Texas (Brazos 
River Harbor Navigation District), grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 149, 
for authority to establish special-purpose subzone status at the 
chemical products manufacturing facilities of BASF Corporation in 
Freeport, Texas, was filed by the Board on February 2, 1993, and notice 
inviting public comment was given in the Federal Register (FTZ Docket 
3-93, 58 FR 8929, 2-18-93); and,
    Whereas, the Board has found that the requirements of the FTZ Act 
and Board's regulations would be satisfied, and that approval of the 
application would be in the public interest provided approval is 
subject to certain conditions;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby authorizes the establishment of a 
subzone (Subzone 149A) at the plant sites of BASF Corporation in 
Freeport, Texas, at the locations described in the application, subject 
to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Sec. 400.28, and 
subject to the following conditions:
    1. Privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41) shall be elected on 
all foreign merchandise admitted to the subzone, except that 
nonprivileged foreign (NPF) status (19 CFR 146.42) may be elected for 
foreign caprolactam extract (HTSUS 2933.71.0000-6) and cyclohexanone 
(HTSUS 2914.22.1000) up to a level of 45 million kilograms (100 mil. 
lbs.) annually for each item.
    2. The authority with regard to the NPF option is initially granted 
until December 31, 1999, subject to extension.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 17th day of March 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
Attest:
John Da Ponte, Jr.,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-7611 Filed 3-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
<PAGE>

                 AGREEMENT FOR MODIFICATION AND EXTENSION OF LEASE

AGREEMENT between Jimmie D. Smith, Jr. Post office Box 7623, Rocky Mount, NC 
27804 hereinafter "Landlord" and Pillowtex Corporation, a corporation 
existing under the laws of the State of Texas, with an office at 4111 Mint 
Way, Dallas, Texas 75237, hereinafter "Tenant" modifying and extending the 
lease dated October 12, 1988 between the above fore-mentioned as it relates 
to a certain tract or parcel of land located in the Southwest quadrant of 
Craig and South Davis Street, Rocky Mount, Nash County, North Carolina.

WITNESSETH:  That for one dollar ($1.00) and other valuable consideration by 
each of the parties hereto mentioned to the other in hand paid, receipt 
whereof is hereby reciprocally acknowledged, said lease is hereby modified 
and extended to October 31, 1998, at a rental of one hundred six thousand and 
two hundred dollars ($106,200.00) per annum for said term commencing November 
1, 1994 and terminating October 31, 1998, which rent shall be paid in equal 
monthly installments of eighty eight hundred and fifty dollars ($8,850.00).   
   It is further expressly and agreed that in all other respects said lease 
shall be unmodified and in full force.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Landlord has caused these present to be signed and 
witnessed and the Tenant has hereunto caused these present to be signed by 
the Secretary and another duly authorized officer.

              /s/ (Signature Illegible)            /s/ (Signature Illegible)
              -------------------------            -------------------------
              WITNESS                              LANDLORD


              /s/ (Signature Illegible)            /s/ (Signature Illegible)
              -------------------------            -------------------------
              SECRETARY                            TENANT
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 58 (Monday, March 27, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15792]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7479]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-27,169]


Sedco Forex Resources, Inc., A/K/A International Chandlers (a 
Subsidiary of Schlumberger Technology Corp.) North American Region, 
U.S. Operations Office, Dallas, Texas and TA-W-27,169A all Other Mobile 
Marine and Land Based Units and Offices Operating out of/in the State 
of Texas; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility to Apply for 
Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 
2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to 
apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on June 19, 1992, applicable to 
all workers of the subject firm. The Notice was published in the 
Federal Register on June 30, 1992 (57 FR 29101).
    At the request of the workers, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. New findings show that 
the company changed its name on January 1, 1993 to International 
Chandlers.
    Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to 
properly reflect this matter.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-29,169 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of the U.S. Operations Office of the North American 
Region of Sedco Forex Resources, Inc., also known as (A/K/A) 
International Chandlers, Dallas, Texas (TA-W-27,169) and all other 
mobile marine and land based units and offices operating out of/in 
the state of Texas (TA-W-27,169A) who became totally or partially 
separated from employment on or after April 7, 1991 are eligible to 
apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act 
of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, D.C., this 10th day of March 1995.
Victor J. Trunzo,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-7479 Filed 3-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 5, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 17380]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8367]



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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Notice of Intent To Rule on Application To Impose and Use the 
Revenue From a Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) at Lebanon Municipal 
Airport

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Correction.

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

SUMMARY: In Notice document 95-6517 beginning on page 14316, in the 
Thursday, March 16, 1995 issue, make the following correction: On page 
14317 in the first column, under proposed charge expiration date, July 
15, 1995, should read May 15, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON THIS CORRECTION CONTACT: Priscilla Soldan, 
Airports Program Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports 
Division, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 
01803, (617) 238-7614.
Bradley A. Davis,
Assistant Manager, Airports Division, New England Region.
[FR Doc. 95-8367 Filed 4-4-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 26, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-5021

Goodman Manufacturing Company, L.P.:

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
#### CITY OF JEFFERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Judith Anne VIETH, Defendant-Respondent.

No. WD 43041.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

July 24, 1990.

B. Allen Garner, City Counselor, Jefferson City, for plaintiff-appellant.

F. Randall Waltz, III, Jefferson City, for defendant-respondent.

Before TURNAGE, P.J., and MANFORD and BERREY, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The City of Jefferson appeals from the dismissal of the charge of running a red light filed against Judith Anne Vieth.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
[Cite as State ex rel. Thomas v. Harnett, 2019-Ohio-4044.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

STARK COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE ex rel. DALON ANTHONY THOMAS, : JUDGES: 

 : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. 

 Relator, : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. 

 : Hon. Earle E. Wise, J. 

-vs- : 

 : 

JUDGE CHRYSSA N. HARTNETT of the : Case No. 2019CA00091 

STARK COUNTY COURT OF COMMON : 

PLEAS, : 

 : 

 Repondent. : O P I N I O N 

 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Mandamus 

 

JUDGMENT: Dismissed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: September 30, 2019 

APPEARANCES: 

For Relator For Respondent 

DALON A. THOMAS, Pro Se JOHN D. FERRERO 

#A324-811 Stark County Prosecuting Attorney 

London Correctional Institution 

 

P.O. Box 69 By: RONALD MARK CALDWELL 

London, Ohio 43130 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

 110 Central Plaza South, Suite 510 

 Canton, Ohio 44702-1413 
Stark County, Case No. 2019CA00091 2 

Baldwin, J.

{¶1} On June 25, 2019, Dalon Thomas filed a petition for writ of mandamus to 

compel Judge Chryssa Hartnett to rule on his pending motion to withdraw guilty plea. This 

Court is permitted to consider facts outside the record to show that a case is moot. Miner 

v. Witt, 82 Ohio St. 237, 239, 92 N.E. 21 (1910). Here, Judge Hartnett issued a Judgment 

Entry on July 11, 2019 denying Mr. Thomas’s Motion to Vacate Convictions and Withdraw 

Plea. 

{¶2} The issuance of the Judgment Entry rendered Mr. Thomas’s writ of 

mandamus moot. See State ex rel. Eubank v. McDonald, 135 Ohio St.3d 186, 2013-Ohio72, 985 N.E.2d 463, ¶1 (“Mandamus will not lie to compel an act that has already been 

performed.”) See also State ex rel. Scruggs v. Sadler, 102 Ohio St.3d 160, 2004-Ohio2054, 807 N.E.2d 357, ¶5; State ex rel. Richard v. Wells, 64 Ohio St.3d 76, 77, 591 N.E.2d 

1240 (1992). Therefore, because Mr. Thomas’s writ of mandamus is moot it is dismissed. 

{¶3} The clerk of courts is hereby directed to serve upon all parties not in default 

notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. See Civ.R. 58(B). 

By: Baldwin, J. 

Gwin, P.J. and 

Wise, Earle, J. concur.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 57 (Friday, March 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7507]



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



ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

Committee on Rulemaking

ACTION: Notice of public meetings.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 
92-463), notice is hereby given of meetings of the Committee on 
Rulemaking of the Administrative Conference of the United States.

DATES: April 5, 1995, at 9:30 am; April 24, 1995, at 9:30 am.

LOCATION: Administrative Conference Library, 2120 L Street, NW, Suite 
500, Washington DC 20037.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Nancy G. Miller, Office of the Chairman, 
Administrative Conference of the United States, 2120 L Street, NW, 
Suite 500, Washington, DC 20037. Telephone: (202) 254-7020.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Committee on Rulemaking will continue 
its discussion, begun at a meeting on March 29, 1995, of projects on 
(a) review of existing agency regulations, (b) interim final 
rulemaking, and (c) direct final rulemaking.
    Attendance at the meetings is open to the interested public, but 
limited to the space available. Persons wishing to attend should notify 
the Office of the Chairman at least one day in advance. The chairman of 
the committee, if he deems it appropriate, may permit members of the 
public to present oral statements at the meeting. Any member of the 
public may file a written statement with the committee before, during, 
or after the meeting. Minutes of each meeting will be available on 
request.

    Dated: March 22, 1995.
Jeffrey S. Lubbers,
Research Director.
[FR Doc. 95-7507 Filed 3-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6110-01-W
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2001

Detroit Thermal Systems: 

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

_05.09.19.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 products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

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
#### Godfrey Reitte, Respondent, v Entermy Cab Corp., Appellant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, et al., Defendant. Gala Taxi Service Corp. et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Hansel McGee, J.), entered on or about June 2, 1989, granting plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s answer and setting the matter down for an inquest on damages, unanimously affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

That the defendant has disappeared or made himself unavailable provides no basis for denying a motion to strike his answer, particularly in the face of continued defaults and requests for appearance for examinations before trial. *(Moriates v Powertest Petroleum Co.,*114 AD2d 888; *Foti v Suero,*97 AD2d 748.)

In this instance, the defendant was ordered to produce for deposition its principal, Michael Starbuck. After failing to produce him at the court-ordered deposition, a conditional order was entered providing for the imposition of sanctions should the witness not be produced. The witness once again failed to appear. In light of these repeated failures and the *260admission that, in fact, defense counsel had no contact with the witness after answering, there was ample support for the court to strike the answer and set the matter down for a hearing on the issue of damages. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Smith and Rubin, JJ.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 1906

MAI CHAPPEL , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. SPIVEY SHELTON; SARAH SPIVEY , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. ( 2:22

- cv - 00174

- MSD

- LRL )

Submitted : December 20, 2022 Decided: December 22, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed as modified by un published per curiam opinion

. Mai Chappel, Appellant Pro Se

. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1906 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Mai Chappel appeals th e district court’s order dismissing her civil complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Chappel ’ s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, she has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limite d to issues preserved in that brief.”). We therefore modify the district court’s dismissal order to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice, and we affirm the dismissal as modified.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2106; Ali v. Hogan , 26 F.4th 587, 600 (4th Cir. 2022) (explaining that dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be without prejudice). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED USCA4 Appeal: 22-1906 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
Exhibit 10.3







Exhibit 10.3




Ancestry.com Inc.

Description of 2010 Performance Incentive Program




On March 18, 2010, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Ancestry.com Inc
(the “Company”) approved financial performance objectives under the Company’s Performance Incentive
Program to serve as the basis for determining the Company-wide bonus pool to be paid under the
program for 2010.




The Compensation Committee established two corporate performance measures that are to be used in
calculating the pool for awards for 2010: revenue and adjusted EBITDA. Both measures will be
weighted equally.




For revenue, no pool funding occurs below budget; at 100% of budgeted revenue, the pool is funded
at 80% of the budgeted bonus pool attributable to revenue (i.e., 50% of the pool). The maximum
funding of 120% of the budgeted bonus pool attributable to revenue occurs at 105% of budgeted
revenue. Results between 100% and 105% of budgeted revenues are interpolated such that 100% funding
of the budgeted bonus pool attributable to revenue occurs at 102.5% of budgeted revenue.




For adjusted EBITDA, no pool funding occurs below budget; at 100% of budgeted adjusted EBITDA, the
pool is funded at 80% of the budgeted bonus pool attributable to adjusted EBITDA (i.e., the other
50% of the pool). The maximum funding of 120% of the budgeted bonus pool attributable to adjusted
EBITDA occurs at 110% of budgeted adjusted EBITDA. Results between 100% and 110% of budgeted
adjusted EBITDA are interpolated such that 100% funding of the budgeted bonus pool attributable to
adjusted EBITDA occurs at 105% of budgeted adjusted EBITDA. The Company defines adjusted EBITDA as
net income (loss) plus net interest (income) expense; income tax expense; non-cash charges
including depreciation, amortization, impairment of intangible assets and stock-based compensation
expense; and other (income) expense.




Under the Performance Incentive Program for 2010, each of the two performance measures are reviewed
separately in determining the funding of the bonus pool. For example, if the Company achieves less
than 100% of budgeted revenues but achieves 100% of budgeted adjusted EBITDA, then employees will
be eligible for a pool funded with zero allocation from the revenue target, but 80% of the adjusted
EBITDA target (or 40% of the budgeted bonus pool).




Individual payments made from the pool to each participant in the Performance Incentive Program,
including the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), the Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”), and the other
executive officers, will be based on each executive officer’s target bonus percentage of salary, as
such amount may be adjusted by (1) the achievement of individual performance goals, (2) individual
performance ratings, (3) business unit performance, and (4) such other factors as the Board of
Directors or Compensation Committee may determine.
<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>                                             157
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,446
<ALLOWANCES>                                       110
<INVENTORY>                                      5,377
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,688
<PP&E>                                           2,217
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,652
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  17,155
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,004
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           103
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,319
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    17,155
<SALES>                                          7,852
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,444
<CGS>                                            6,750
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,107
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,525
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (281)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 519
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (721)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (721)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (721)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)


</TABLE>