alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT’S REPORT**

 

Board of Directors 

Killbuck Bancshares, Inc.

 

We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of KillbuckBancshares, Inc. and subsidiary as of September 30, 2003, and the related consolidated statement of income for the nine month and three month periods ended September 30, 2003 and 2002, and the consolidated statement of cash flows for the nine monthperiods ended September 30, 2003 and 2002, and the consolidated statement of changes in shareholders’ equity for the nine month period ended September 30, 2003. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management.

 

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by theAmerican Institute of Certified Public Accountants. 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 auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as awhole. Accordingly we do not express such an opinion. 

 

Based on our review, weare not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. 

 

We have previously audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in theUnited States of America, the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2002, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders’ equity and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein); and in ourreport dated February 20, 2003 we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements. In our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2002, is fairly stated, in allmaterial respects, in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived. 

 

/s/ S.R. SNODGRASS, A.C. 

 

Steubenville, Ohio

November 10, 2003 

 

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

October 18, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2235

Grainger International 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 failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4267

Tianhai Electric North America:

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
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40640

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JULIO CESAR MARTINEZ-NAVARRO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:14-CR-278-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Julio Cesar 

Martinez-Navarro has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Martinez-Navarro has not filed a 

response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the 

record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 21, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-40640 Document: 00513013514 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2015
No. 14-40640

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 14-40640 Document: 00513013514 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2015
#### Chester BANKS, Employee/Appellant, v. LACLEDE GAS COMPANY, Employer/Respondent.

No. 64756.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

June 7, 1994.

Rehearing Denied July 28, 1994.

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

Michael F. Banahan, Mary Anne Lindsey, Evans & Dixon, St. Louis, for respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Employee appeals from the final award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) which allowed permanent partial disability benefits and denied future medical treatment and temporary total disability.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memoran*332dum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
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-2018-0025-4310

Seaboard International, 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 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
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**922 CA 14-00270**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

SCAN TUBE & STEEL SERVICES, LTD., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT,

V ORDER
ALTX, INC., TUBACEX & COTUBES CANADA INC., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS, AND TUBACEX CANADA, INC., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

WEBSTER SZANYI LLP, BUFFALO (KEVIN T. O’BRIEN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT.
DAMON MOREY LLP, BUFFALO (BRIAN D. GWITT OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS AND DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John A. Michalek, J.), entered April 18, 2013. The order granted in part and denied in part the motion of defendants for summary judgment.
Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation of discontinuance signed by the attorneys for the parties on August 26, 2014,
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal and cross appeal are unanimously dismissed without costs upon stipulation.

Entered: September 26, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
**Exhibit
        32.1**




**Certification
      of Periodic Report**


**Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**


**As
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002**





Pursuant
      to, and for purposes only of, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned hereby certifies
      that (i) the Quarterly Report of Peoples Bancorp, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the
      quarter ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) information contained
      in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and results of operations of Peoples Bancorp, Inc. and
      Subsidiaries.





Date:
                August 11, 2008
            /s/
                Thomas G. StevensonThomas
                G. StevensonPresident/Chief
                Executive Officer&
                Chief Financial Officer
#### Harrell E. BRANNAN, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Carol A. BRANNAN, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 67367.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Oct. 17, 1995.

Roger M. Hibbits, St. Louis, for appellant.

David L. Campbell, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and WHITE, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Wife appeals from the portion of the dissolution decree dividing marital property. We affirm. The judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial and competent evi-*156denee; no error of law appears. Rule 84.16(b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

        <S> <C>
<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
              This schedule contains summary information extracted from
              the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Consolidated
              Balance Sheets of Vista Technologies Inc. and Subsidiaries
              and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
              consolidated financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>               0000895725
<NAME>        VISTA TECHNOLOGIES INC.
<MULTIPLIER>  1000
<S>                                 <C>         
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     Mar-31-1997 
<PERIOD-START>                        Apr-01-1996 
<PERIOD-END>  Mar-31-1997 
<PERIOD-TYPE> 12-MOS 
<CASH>          558 
<SECURITIES>      0 
<RECEIVABLES>   286 
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0 
<INVENTORY>                                     0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              991 
<PP&E>                                      3,241 
<DEPRECIATION>                              1,152 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              4,331 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       4,110 
<BONDS>                                     2,104 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0 
<PREFERRED>                                     0 
<COMMON>                                       39 
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,134)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                4,331 
<SALES>                                     3,486 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            3,486 
<CGS>                                           0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               8,546 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            8,209 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            336 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,999)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,999)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0 
<CHANGES>                                       0 
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,999)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               (1.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (1.05)

        

</TABLE>
Tel: 972-871-8000 Sales Dept. Fax: 972-871-8888 

www.beckettus.com 

BECKETT CORPORATION

3250 Skyway Circle North 

Irving, Texas 75038-3527 

October 1, 2018 

Robert E. Lighthizer 

United States Trade Representative 

Office of the United States Trade Representative 

600 17th Street NW 

Washington, DC 20508 

Re: Section 301 Tariffs - Request for Exclusion of Beckett Corporation’s Water Pump Product 

Dear Mr. Lighthizer: 

Beckett Corporation (“Beckett”), a Texas corporation, provides this letter in support of our request for a 

product exclusion from the Section 301 Tariffs. The product of concern, classified under HTSUS 8413.70.2090, is a 

customized centrifugal pump specially designed for use in particular ice makers manufactured by a U.S. company. 

The pump is supplied solely to this one U.S. company. 

The pump is manufactured in China by our wholly owned subsidiary. As such, the pump is subject to an 

additional 25 percent tariff as it is classified as having a China country of origin and is within the tariff codes 

identified in the Section 301 determination (“List 1”). 

The 25 percent tariff is significantly and negatively impacting our U.S. business, driving prices up and 

impacting the competitiveness of Beckett’s products. Not only are the Section 301 Tariffs damaging our business, 

but also, adversely affecting the U.S.-manufacturer and its customers, who rely on this customized Product for 

proper functioning of the ice makers. Importantly, Beckett is the only supplier of these particular water pumps. As a 

result of such price impacts, the Section 301 Tariffs are affecting U.S. jobs, including Beckett’s employees, and the 

U.S.-manufacturer’s workers, customers, distributors and agents. 

As we understand the policies behind the Section 301 Tariffs, we do not believe the damage being caused by 

the imposition of an additional 25 percent tariff to our business and the impact on the U.S. supply chain is an 

intended or desired consequence. 

Therefore, we respectfully request that you grant our exclusion request. 

 Best Regards, 

 

 Wingate Sung 

 Executive VP & COO 

 Beckett Corporation
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-2018-0025-5494

SGRE, 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 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
**Exhibit31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

 

I, Gary J. Skoien, Chief Executive Officer of Horizon Group Properties,Inc., certify that:

 

1.     Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Horizon Group Properties,Inc.;

 

2.     Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.     Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and  have:

 

a)     Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made know to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)    Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)     Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)     Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)    Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

 
| Dated: |  November 14, 2003 |   | /s/ Gary J. Skoien      |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   |                    |   | Gary J. Skoien          |   |
|   |                    |   | Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

1

----
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-2018-0025-4386

Milacron:

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 this particular product is available 

only from China.

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