alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6287

CW Bearing USA, 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/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.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,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
Exhibit
32.1
















Principal
Executive Officer’s Certification Pursuant To




Section
1350


(furnished,
not filed)














In
connection with the Annual Report of GeoGlobal Resources Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-KSB/A for the year ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jean Paul Roy,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





1)  The Report fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and





2)  The information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.











/s/ Jean Paul
Roy











Jean Paul
Roy


President
and Chief Executive Officer


June 3,
2008
exv10w28









Exhibit 10.28




Original Issue Date:




$______________          




AMENDMENT OF 12% CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURE

DUE ______________, 201__





     This letter serves as an “Amendment” to the existing 12% Convertible Debentures dated
________________ issued by NYTEX Energy Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) to
_________________ (the “Holder”) in the principal sum of $______________.



     The Company is hereby granting an extension of the “Maturity Date” of the 12% Convertible
Debenture to October 06, 2011. All other existing provisions as more fully described in the
attached Exhibit A remain the same and full force and effect.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be duly authorized officer
as of February 8, 2011.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	NYTEX ENERGY HOLDINGS, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	 	 
	 	 	Name:  	 	 
	 	 	Title:  	 	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	ACCEPTED AND AGREED:



“HOLDER”

 	 
	By:   
	 
	 
	Date:
2010 Executive Compensation



 Exhibit 10.33 

Named Executive Officer Compensation Information – 2010 Salaries and Target Bonus Percentages 

The table below provides information regarding the annual base salaries and target bonus percentages for the Company’s 2009 named executive officers
for the 2010 performance period, effective April 1, 2010: 
  

								
	 Named Executive Officer
	  	2010 Annual
Base Salary	 	 	2010 Target Bonus
Percentage (1)	 
	 Ronald W. Barrett, PhD

Chief Executive Officer
	  	$	446,250	(2) 	 	90	% 
	 William G. Harris

Senior Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer
	  	$	342,000	  	 	40	% 
	 William J. Rieflin

President
	  	$	348,500	(2) 	 	60	% 
	 Vincent J. Angotti

Senior Vice President, Chief Commercialization Officer
	  	$	395,000	  	 	40	% 
	 David R. Savello, PhD

Senior Vice President of Development
	  	$	342,500	  	 	40	% 

  

	(1)	Represents a percentage of 2010 annual base salary pursuant to the terms and conditions of the XenoPort, Inc. Corporate Bonus Plan. 


	(2)	In March 2010, in light of the Company’s reduction in force and restructuring, and consistent with the Company’s cash conservation and expense reduction
strategies due to the uncertainty resulting from the FDA’s Complete Response letter regarding the Horizant new drug application, Dr. Barrett and Mr. Rieflin each voluntarily reduced his respective 2010 base salary by 15%,
effective April 1, 2010.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 62 (Friday, March 31, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 16685]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7918]



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


NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

All Licensees; Receipt of Petition for Director's Decision Under 
10 CFR 2.206

    Notice is hereby given that by a letter dated March 8, 1995 from 
Thomas J. Saporito, Jr., to the Executive Director for Operations, the 
NRC received a Petition under 10 CFR 2.206 requesting that all 
licensees be required to review their operating procedures in order to 
ascertain whether those procedures place any restrictions on the 
ability of employees to bring safety concerns directly to the NRC 
without following the normal chain of command. The Petition requests 
that each licensee be required to report to the Commission, under oath 
or affirmation, that the review has been completed, that its employees 
are free to bring concerns to the NRC without following the normal 
chain of command, and that this information has been communicated to 
all of its employees.
    Petitioner's request is being considered pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 
of the Commission's regulations. Action will be taken on these requests 
within a reasonable time. A copy of the Petition is available for 
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room at 2120 L Street, 
NW., Washington, DC.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 23rd day of March 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph R. Gray,
Deputy Director, Office of Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 95-7918 Filed 3-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
Description of Awards under Executive Bonus Plan



 Exhibit 10.1 

Description of Awards under Executive Bonus Plan 

In addition to base salary, Markel Corporation (the “Company”) maintains an Executive Bonus Plan that has been approved by
shareholders. The plan is designed so that payments will not be subject to the $1,000,000 deduction limit under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code. Performance criteria under the Plan have been submitted for re-approval at the 2010
annual meeting in accordance with Section 162(m) and, if approved by shareholders, could include, in addition to growth in book value, one or more of the following: underwriting loss ratio; underwriting combined ratio; expense ratio; and
revenue growth. 
 The plan is administered by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors. The Committee has the power
and complete discretion to select eligible employees to receive awards and to determine the type of award and its terms and conditions. All present and future executive officers of the Company whom the Committee determines to have contributed or who
can be expected to contribute significantly to the Company are eligible to receive awards under the plan. Messrs. Alan I. Kirshner, Anthony F. Markel, Steven A. Markel, Thomas S. Gayner, Richard R. Whitt, III, Gerard Albanese, Jr., Britton L.
Glisson, F. Michael Crowley and John Latham are the only executive officers eligible for awards under the plan for 2010. 

Awards are subject to the achievement of pre-established performance goals and are administered to comply with the
requirements of Section 162(m). Performance goals for 2010 relate to growth in book value and, in the case of Messrs. Albanese and Latham, also include underwriting combined ratio and revenue growth. The Committee sets the amounts payable under
each performance award. The employee receives the appropriate payment at the end of the performance period if the performance goals and other terms and conditions of the award are met. Awards are payable in cash. The aggregate maximum cash amount
payable under the plan to any employee in any year cannot exceed the lesser of 250% of base salary or $2,500,000. Any performance award must be made before the
90 th day of the period for which the performance award
relates and before the completion of 25% of such period. 
 The Board can amend or terminate the plan at any time, except that
only shareholders can approve amendments that would (i) materially change or impact which employees are eligible to participate or (ii) materially change the benefits that eligible employees may receive under the plan. However, the Board
can amend the plan as necessary and without shareholder approval to ensure that the plan continues to comply with Section 162(m). 

Growth in book value targets are similar to prior years. Underwriting-based targets are based on a grid measuring underwriting
performance and revenue growth for the business operations for which the executive officer has direct responsibility, modified by the overall corporate combined ratio.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6000
ERON JOHNSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JON P. GALLEY; JOHN JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-04- 3152-AMD) Submitted: April 28, 2005 Decided: May 5, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eron Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. 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: Eron Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Planet Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Scott
L. Glenn, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

(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/ Scott L. Glenn
---------------------------
Scott L. Glenn
Chief Executive Officer
March 31, 2005
#### Jean A. PEGLER, Appellant, v. William G. MAY, Respondent.

No. 60349.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

Nov. 3, 1992.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Dec. 16, 1992.

Application to Transfer Denied Jan. 26, 1993.

*459Terry A. Bond, Vines, Ross, Kraner & Rubin, Clayton, for appellant.

Daniel E. Wilke, Dean R. Gallego, Brink-er, Doyen, Kovacs & Wilke, P.C., Clayton, for respondent.

SMITH, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment based upon a jury verdict in favor of defendant in this personal injury action resulting from a single vehicle automobile accident. We affirm.

Plaintiff was a back seat passenger in a Ford Bronco automobile operated by defendant. Defendant crested a hill on Highway 30 and observed an automobile 150 to 200 feet ahead of him stopping and pulling to the right shoulder. He also observed an emergency vehicle approaching from the opposite direction. Defendant testified that he hit the brake pedal and the Bronco began “fishtailing”. He attempted to regain control of the vehicle but was unable to do so. The Bronco eventually became airborne and rolled over at least once. Plaintiff was thrown from the vehicle and sustained injuries. Defendant testified that he did not know what caused the Bronco to begin fishtailing. The case was submitted to the jury on the proposition that defendant failed to maintain a proper lookout or failed to stop and that such conduct was negligent and resulted in plaintiffs injuries.

Plaintiff’s two points on appeal both raise the same issue, that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Plaintiff contends that it is also unsupported by any believable evidence. A jury verdict will not be overturned on appeal unless there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the verdict. *Steif v. Limpiphiphatn,*814 S.W.2d 695 (Mo.App.1991) [1]. It is within the exclusive province of the trial court to determine whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. *Id.*at [1, 2]. The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict and the burden is on the plaintiff to adduce evidence from which a jury may find negligence. The jury is the judge of the credibility of the witnesses and it may find against the party having the burden of proof even where the evidence is uncontra-dicted. *Roark Motor Lodge Interval Sales Corp. v. Lindner,*779 S.W.2d 684 (Mo.App.1989) [2-4].

There is no absence of probative facts in this case to support the verdict. Defendant testified that he observed the vehicles ahead stopping at a sufficient distance to have stopped. He attempted to stop and for reasons unknown to him the Bronco went out of control and crashed. The jury could have found, and apparently did, that defendant did not negligently operate his motor vehicle and that the accident was not the product of his negligence.

Judgment affirmed.

GARY M. GAERTNER, P.J., and CHARLES B. BLACKMAR, Senior Judge, concur.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136519 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136519 

 COA: 283273 

Oakland CC: 2002-182491-FC 

KENNETH MICHAEL SPARKS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 2, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s1020 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 27, 2008 

 Clerk
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-2018-0025-6406

Apergy ESP Systems, LLC:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 3999

_____________________________
E DWARD R EEDER ,
Petitioner
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Belated Appeal

– Original Jurisdiction.

November 9, 2018

P ER C URIAM

. The petition for belated appeal is denied on the merits.

W ETHERELL , M AKAR , and W INSOR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla . R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Edward Reeder, pro se
, Petitioner

. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Respondent

.
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

I, Jerry W. Bayless, President of Arcadia Financial Ltd., certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
     Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of
     periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of Arcadia
     Receivables Finance Corp.;
2.   Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
     whole, 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 as
     of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;
3.   Based upon my knowledge, the servicing information required to be
     provided  to the trustee by the servicer under the sale and servicing
     agreement  is included in these reports;
4.   I am responsible for reviewing the servicing activities performed by
     the servicer under the sale and servicing agreement and based upon the
     review required under the sale and servicing agreement, and except as
     disclosed in the report, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations
     under the sale and servicing agreement; and
5.   I have disclosed to the registrant's certified public accountants all
     significant deficiencies relating to the servicer's compliance with its
     servicing standards in accordance with an internal review of its
     compliance with the provisions of the sale and servicing agreement.

Date: March 28, 2003



/s/  Jerry W. Bayless
Name:  Jerry W. Bayless
Title: President
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

GREGORY A. COX,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-30137

D.C. No. 2:05-cr-00202-SMJ

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Salvador Mendoza, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 24, 2016** 

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. 

Gregory A. Cox appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

the sentence of 12 months and one day imposed upon revocation of supervised

release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

FEB 29 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Cox contends that the district court procedurally erred by lengthening his

sentence in order to promote rehabilitation and by failing to explain its reasons for

rejecting his arguments in favor of a within-Guidelines sentence. We review for

plain error, see United States v. Grant, 664 F.3d 276, 279 (9th Cir. 2011), and find

none. Although the court did discuss its hope that Cox would deal with his

substance abuse problem while in custody, it did not impose or lengthen his

sentence to promote rehabilitation. See id. at 281. Moreover, the court adequately

explained the sentence imposed. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992

(9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Cox also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it

is greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of sentencing. The district court

did not abuse its discretion in imposing Cox’s sentence. See Gall v. United States,

552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence is substantively

reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of

the circumstances, including Cox’s repeated use of methamphetamine and failure

to be deterred by a prior revocation sentence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

AFFIRMED.

2 15-30137