alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Form of Notice of Grant of Stock Options and Option Agreement



 Exhibit 10.3 

 

							
	  
 Notice of Grant of Stock Options

 and Option Agreement

(Transition Agreement)
	 		 	 Harley-Davidson, Inc.

      ID: 39-1805420

3700 West Juneau Avenue
 Milwaukee,
WI  53208
	 	




	  
 «FirstName» «LastName»

«Address1»

«City,» «State» «Zip»

«Country»
	 		 	  
 Option Number:

Plan:      2009 Incentive Stock Plan

ID:


  

 
 Effective <insert date> (the
“Grant Date”), you have been granted a(n) Non-Qualified Stock Option to buy <insert number of shares> shares of Harley-Davidson, Inc. (the “Company”) stock at «price» per share. 

The total option price of the shares granted is «$ amount». 

Shares in each period will become fully vested on the date shown: 
  

							
	 Shares
	  	 Vest Type
	  	 Full Vest
	  	 Expiration

				
	«shares»	  		  		  	
	«shares»	  		  		  	
	«shares»	  		  		  	

 These options are granted under and governed by the terms and conditions of the Company’s 2009 Incentive
Stock Plan and this Option Agreement; provided that the occurrence of a Change of Control (as defined in the Plan) shall not, in and of itself, cause otherwise unvested options to become vested. Unless the Committee has exercised its discretion
under Section 17(c) of the Plan to provide a result more favorable to you, whether or not the vesting of otherwise unvested options is accelerated following such Change of Control shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of the
Transition Agreement then in effect between you and Harley-Davidson, Inc. (or, if you had been but are not then a party to a Transition Agreement, the provisions of the Transition Agreement that would have applied if the last such Transition
Agreement to which you were a party had continued). 
 If you cease to be employed by the Company and its Affiliates for reasons other than
Cause (as defined in the Plan) on or after age fifty-five (55): (a) if such cessation of employment occurred after the first anniversary of the Grant Date, then, effective immediately prior to the time of cessation of employment, options to
purchase shares that were not previously exercisable will become fully exercisable and (b) without limiting your rights under Section 7(g) of the Plan, the Option shall remain exercisable, to the extent it was exercisable at the time of
cessation of employment, until the earliest of: the Option’s expiration date; the first anniversary of the date of your death; or the third anniversary of the date of such cessation of employment. 

You may return this Option Agreement to the Company (in care of the Vice President and Treasurer) within thirty (30) days after the Grant Date, and
by doing so you will forfeit any rights under this Option Agreement. If you choose to retain this Option Agreement beyond that date, then you accept the terms of these options and agree and consent to all amendments to the Plan and the
Company’s 1995 Stock Option Plan and 2004 Incentive Stock Plan through the Grant Date as they apply to these options and any prior awards to you under such plans. 

 

			
	Vice President and Treasurer	 	
	Date:  	 	
	Time:
#### John G. HANEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 67340.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

June 20, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 27, 1995.

*222David C. Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Mary Moulton Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, John G. Haney, appeals from an order of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County dismissing his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. Appellant’s motion attacked neither his conviction nor his sentence, but rather attacked the legality of the circuit court’s revocation of his probation. A Rule 24.035 motion is not the proper procedure by which to challenge the legality of a court’s revocation of probation. *Wood v. State,*853 S.W.2d 369, 370 (Mo.App.E.D.1993). The adoption of Rule 24.035 in place of Rule 27.26 does not change this rule. *Id.*The circuit court did not clearly err in dismissing appellant’s Rule 24.035 motion. Because an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 99.1

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

May 7, 2007

Board of Directors

Killbuck Bancshares, Inc.

We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Killbuck Bancshares, Inc. and its subsidiary as of March 31, 2007, and the related consolidated
statements of income for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2007 and 2006, and the consolidated statement of changes in stockholders equity for the three-month period ended March 31, 2007 and the consolidated statements of cash
flows for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2007 and 2006. These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Companys management.

We conducted our review in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical
procedures to financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in conformity with accounting principles U.S. generally accepted.

We have previously audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet as of
December 31, 2006, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders equity, and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein); and in our report dated February 20, 2007 we expressed an
unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements.



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ S.R. SNODGRASS, A.C.     
|                             
|S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.         
|626 North Fourth Street      
|Steubenville, Ohio 43952-1982
|Phone: 740-282-2771          
|Facsimile: 740-282-1606
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-2018-0025-5914

Applica Water Products LLC: 

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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5328

Alo 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

November 13, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4020

Duravant LLC and Ohlson Packaging:

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
* Pursuant to 5th C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-11305 Summary Calendar

DAVID ARRON HERNANDEZ,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:97-CV-907-Y

January 7, 1999

Before JOHNSON, DUHE’, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

David Ar ron Hernandez, Texas prisoner # 646920, appeals from the

district court’s dismissal of his habeas corpus petition, filed pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Hernandez contends that the district court erred

in determining that the petition was barred under the one-year

limitations period of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Specifically, he argues that

the petition should have been deemed filed on the date which a prior §

2254 petition, which was dismissed without prejudice for failure to

exhaust state remedies, was filed.2

We have reviewed the state and federal records and conclude that

the district court properly deemed Hernandez’s petition untimely, as it

was filed approximately two months after the jurisprudential grace

period and any applicable tolling periods had passed. S ee 28 U.S.C.

§2244(d)(1) & (d)(2); Flanagan v. Johnson

, 154 F.3d 196, 201-02 (5th

Cir. 1998); Fields v. Johnson

, 159 F.3d 914, 916 (5th Cir. 1998);

Lambert v. United States , 44 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir. 1996) (plaintiff’s

untimely second Federa l Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) complaint was barred

by the statute of limitations whe re first, timely filed FTCA complaint

was dismissed w ithout prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies, because the first dismissal “left [the plaintiff] in the same

position as if the first suit had never been filed”).

AFFIRMED.
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-2018-0025-3584

Stanley Electric Co, 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
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)

UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED

(SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

I, Michael D. Queen, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A 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)) 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 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 registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

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:  March 27, 2008



| |                            
| | ---------------------------
| | /s/ Michael D. Queen       
| | Michael D. Queen           
| | Principal Executive Officer
#### In the Interest of M.M., Juvenile/Appellant.

No. 66024.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 7, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 7, 1995.

Christine R. Sullivan, St. Louis, for appellant.

John T. McCaffrey, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before GRIMM, C.J., REINHARD, P.J., and CRAHAN, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Juvenile appeals from the juvenile court’s order, modifying a previous order of disposition, committing him to the care, custody and control of the Division of Youth Services. We affirm. No error of law appears, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, *201setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-17-00500- CV

Solomon Lem uel P err y, Appellan t

v. New P enn Financial; Austin Police Depart m ent; Constable P rec inct 5; Bharath Vasud evan; and Hi ll Coun try P ropert y Managem ent, Appellees

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 250 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -GN-1 7-0 0249 8, H ONO RAB LE TIM SULAK , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant S olomon L emuel P err y has filed a pro se not ice of appeal from an order g ranting a temporar

y restra ining order signe d by the district court on J uly 17, 2017. On Aug ust 17, 2017, this Court reque sted appellant to inform it of the b asis on which this Court may exercise jurisdiction over the appea l. The Court reque sted that appellant respond by Aug ust 28, 2017, and appellant wa s warne d that a fa ilure to respond w ould result in the dismiss al of this appea l. As of 1 this date, the Court has re ceive d no response from appe llant.

Gene rally , appellate courts have jurisdiction over appea ls taken from final judgme nts and interlocutory order s the Texas L eg islature has deeme d ap p ea l ab le. A judgme nt is final if it 2

See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(a) , (c)

. 1 City of W

atauga v. Gordon , 434 S.W .3d 586, 588 (Tex. 2014); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp. , 2 39 S.W .3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).finally disposes of all rema ining parties and claims based on the r ecor d of the c ase. A t empora ry 3 restra ining order , howeve r, is g ener ally not an appea lable judgme nt. No statute authorizes litigants 4 to take an interlocutory appea l from an o rd er g ranting or deny ing a temporar y restra ining order

. 5 After a thoroug h revie w of the rec ord, we find no basis for exercising jurisdiction. Acc ording ly , we dismiss the appe al. 6

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Rose, Jus tices Pemberton a nd Goodwin Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: Nove mber 2, 2017

Lehmann , 39 S.W .3d at 200. 3 In re Office of Attorney Gen. , 257 S.W .3d 695, 698 (Tex. 2008) (orig

. proce eding ); In re 4 Texas Nat. Res. Conservation Comm’n , 85 S.W .3d 201, 205 (Tex. 2002) (orig . proce eding ). See Tex. Ci v. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014 (listing appe alable inter locutory order s). 5 See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(a) , (c)

. 6 2
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 62 (Friday, March 31, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 16603]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7912]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Utah Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of 
the Utah Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene on Thursday, 
April 20, 1995, from 6:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., at the Shiloh Inn, 206 SW 
Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101. The purpose of the meeting will be 
to review a draft report on the current project, brief members on 
Commission and regional activities, discuss current civil rights 
issues, and plan future activities.
    Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation 
to the Committee, should contact Committee Chairperson Mary Stovall 
Richards, 801-378-6138 or Ki-Taek Chun, Acting Director of the Rocky 
Mountain Regional Office, 303-866-1040 (TDD 303-866-1049). Hearing-
impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services 
of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at 
least five (5) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission.

    Dated at Washington, DC, March 27, 1995.
Carol-Lee Hurley,
Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 95-7912 Filed 3-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P