alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment No. 3 to Employment Agreement - George H. Cave



 Exhibit 10.6 

AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO 

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

WHEREAS, Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC (“Company”) George H. Cave and (“Executive”) entered into an
Employment Agreement dated as of May 26, 2005 (“Agreement”) and as previously amended; 

WHEREAS, all defined terms used herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement unless specifically
defined herein; 
 WHEREAS, as of February 23, 2010 the Compensation Committee (“Committee”)
of the Board of Directors of ON Semiconductor Corporation considered and approved an increase, effective January 1, 2010, of the maximum target bonus percentage for the Executive from 60% to 65% of his Base Salary during the applicable
Performance Cycle under a bonus Program established and approved by the Committee and/or Board; and 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive now wish to amend the Agreement to reflect the increase to the maximum target
bonus percentage to 65% consistent with the Committee’s approvals and make certain related conforming changes to the Agreement. 

NOW, THEREFORE, for mutual consideration the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

 1. Effective January 1, 2010, Section 2(b) of the Agreement related to “Compensation” is hereby amended by replacing such
section in its entirety with the following: 
 “(b) In addition to the Base Salary, during the Employment
Period, the Executive shall be eligible to participate in the bonus program established and approved by the Board (the “Program”) and, pursuant to the Program, the Executive may earn a bonus (the “Bonus”) on an annual or other
performance period basis (a “Performance Cycle”) of up to a maximum target of 65% of Base Salary earned during the applicable Performance Cycle or an additional amount as approved by the Board under the Program and in each case based on
certain performance criteria; provided that the Executive is actively employed by the Company on the date the Bonuses are paid under the Program, except as provided in Section 5(a) herein. The Bonus may be paid annually or more frequently
depending upon the Performance Cycle, as determined by the Board and pursuant to the Program. The Bonus will be specified by the Board, and the Bonus will be reviewed at least annually by the Board.” 

 

 1 








 2. This Agreement shall amend only the provisions of the Agreement as set forth herein. Those provisions of
the Agreement not expressly amended shall be considered in full force and effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Executive
and the Company have executed this Amendment as of the 24 day of March, 2010. 
  

									
	COMPANY:	 		 	Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC
					
		 		 		 	By:	 	 /s/ COLLEEN MCKEOWN

		 		 		 	Name:	 	Colleen McKeown
		 		 		 	Title:	 	Senior Vice President of Human Resources
			
	EXECUTIVE:	 		 	George H. Cave, in his individual capacity
					
		 		 		 	By:	 	 /s/ GEORGE H. CAVE

		 		 		 	Name:	 	George H. Cave
		 		 		 	Title:	 	 Senior Vice President, General Counsel,

Chief Compliance and Ethics Officer and

Secretary


  

 2
PUBLIC VERSION
$[*********] [******]

$[*********]

INPUT

20.0

$[*********]

[******]

[******]

0.05

PUBLIC VERSION
Consistent with USTR's Section 301 notice, OMRON Management Center of America, Inc. requests

confidential treatment for the information designated as business confidential in this submission. Such

information consists of information that would not customarily be released to the public, including

business or trade secrets regarding production costs and processes, data on sales, product characteristics

customers, destinations, and other product, sales, and cost-related business secrets. Business confidential

information has been indicated herein by enclosing it in single brackets (“[ ]”). A public version of these

comments is also being filed with all confidential information removed.

OMRON in the US is the only designer of this product and only supplier of this component.

CASE,UPPER 3BTN RVSS is a molded plastic switch case, and is used only for automotive purposes to

house switches in a key fob, of which is an OEM-specified dimension. It is only used for further

assembly of components which go into domestic automobile production, which is specified by auto

manufacturer.

This product is not a target of the US Administration's 301 investigation regarding Intellectual Property

concerns. This is not a concern to IP transfer and impressment. This product contains no IP of interest

related to autonomous vehicle production.

The tariff action ultimately poses a risk of significant damage to OMRON, the domestic automobile

industry, and ultimately the US consumer as a increase in price. Like in the case of similar approvals for

vehicle components at the HTS level, OMRON views this product in the same manner. Immediate

movement of production to a US manufacturer or another country would pose significant re-tooling

costs, significant amounts of time, and approvals pertaining to consumer automobile safety standards are

costly and would take a significant amount of time to obtain.

OMRON Management Center of America, Inc. believes that CBP can easily exclude the CASE,UPPER

3BTN RVSS in question based solely on the product description. The following are draft CBP exclusion

instructions:

"CASE,UPPER 3BTN RVSS P Lucky Plastic "pear-shaped" raised edge flat molding with button

holes hollowed out; two arranged next two each other at the top and two arranged on top of each other

below, and a fifth hollow hole at the bottom "Plastic case for REMOTE FUNCTION ACTUATOR -

made of resin - ABS+PC" Dimensions 42m x57.23mm x8.1mm."

This information will be contained on the invoice from the supplier

PUBLIC VERSION
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5129 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5129

  To direct the Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs to 
    notify United States citizens regarding passport expiration and 
                    renewal, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 1, 2023

  Mr. Steube introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To direct the Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs to 
    notify United States citizens regarding passport expiration and 
                    renewal, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Passport Notification Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. REQUIRED NOTIFICATION REGARDING PASSPORT EXPIRATION AND 
              RENEWAL.

    (a) Requirement.--For each United States citizen in possession of a 
valid unexpired passport, not later than 180 days prior to the date on 
which such passport is scheduled to expire, the Assistant Secretary of 
State for Consular Affairs shall provide to the United States citizen--
            (1) a notification regarding such pending expiration date; 
        and
            (2) information on the process for the renewal of such 
        passport, including an identification of any relevant locations 
        at which materials required for such renewal may be submitted.
    (b) Form.--Each notification required under subsection (a) may be 
submitted in electronic or paper form.
    (c) Applicability.--The requirement under subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to passports the expiration of which is scheduled to 
occur on or after the date that is 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

                                                                                                               Exhibit 99.2

                                                 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                                                  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                                       SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant  to  Section  1350,  Chapter  63 of Title 18,  United  States  Code,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, the undersigned,  as Chief Financial  Officer of U.S. Can Corporation  (the  "Company"),  does
hereby certify that:

1)       the Company's Form 10-K 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 Company's Form 10-K fairly  presents,  in all material  respects,  the financial
         condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                                                 /s/ Sandra K. Vollman

                                                                Sandra K. Vollman
                                                                Senior Vice President and
                                                                Chief Financial Officer

                                                                Dated: March 26, 2003
```
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-2018-0025-2976

C&K Components, 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 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
#### Elroy CHANDLER, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 160-88.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

June 6, 1990.

Mark H. Woerner, Corpus Christi, for appellant.

Grant Jones, Dist. Atty. and James D. Rosenkild, Asst. Dist. Atty., Corpus Christi, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of burglary of a habitation pursuant to V.T. C.A., Penal Code Sec. 30.02. The trial court sentenced him to sixteen years in the Texas Department of Corrections.1 The Court of Appeals reversed his conviction and ordered an acquittal. *Chandler v. State,*743 S.W.2d 736 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1987). This Court granted the State’s petition for discretionary review to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding the evidence was insufficient to show an unfurnished apartment was a habitation for purposes of V.T.C.A., Penal Code Sec. 30.01(1). See Tex.R.App. Pro. 200(c)(4).

The Court of Appeals, citing to our opinion in *Jones v. State,*532 S.W.2d 596 (Tex. Cr.App.1976), held that in order to fit within the statutory definition of a habitation a structure must be, at the time of the alleged offense, “actually adapted for the overnight accommodation of persons or at least at some prior time used for the overnight accommodation of persons and still ‘adapted for the overnight accommodation of persons.’ ” *Chandler,*743 S.W.2d at 737.

We have recently handed down an opinion dealing with the correct standard for determining sufficiency of the evidence to show a structure is a habitation for purposes of our burglary statute. *Blankenship v. State,*780 S.W.2d 198 (Tex.Cr.App.1989) (specifically overruling *Jones, supra*). We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to that court for further consideration in light of this Court’s opinion in *Blankenship.*

CLINTON and TEAGUE, JJ., concur in the result.

1

. Now the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 13a-15 OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of U.S. Can Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 officers 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)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions);
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which
are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: October 4, 2005/s/ Michael M. Rajkovic

Michael M. RajkovicExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4858

Arrowhead Electrical Products, 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
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5173 

To apply the Freedom of Information Act to actions and decisions of the 

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information 

in carrying out the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 8, 2023 

Mr. PFLUGER (for himself, Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania, Mr. BALDERSON, Mr. 

CARTER of Georgia, Mr. DUNN of Florida, Mr. WEBER of Texas, and Mr. 

FULCHER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To apply the Freedom of Information Act to actions and 

decisions of the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 

Communications and Information in carrying out the 

Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Broadband Buildout 

5 Accountability Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5173 IH

1 SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY OF FOIA TO THE BROADBAND EQ2 UITY, ACCESS, AND DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM. 

3 Section 60102(o)(2) of the Infrastructure Investment 

4 and Jobs Act (47 U.S.C. 1702(o)(2)) is amended by in5 serting after ‘‘Act’)’’ the following: ‘‘, except for section 

6 552 of that title (commonly referred to as the ‘Freedom 

7 of Information Act’)’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# mtniteb**~tate~** 

# (!Courtof**~peaI~** 

# for tbejf

# eberaI (!Cirntit
WILLIAM 

## o. WAGONER, Petitioner, 

### v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

2013-3006 Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in case no. CH0831110115-B-1. 

### ON MOTION

ORDER William Wagoner moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperIs. Upon consideration thereof, IT Is ORDERED THAT: The motions are granted. Case: 13-3006 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 11/29/2012WILLIAM WAGONER v. OPM

824 FOR THE COURT /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk 2 Case: 13-3006 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 11/29/2012
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7748

CHARLES ROBIN WOODS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

FRANK SIZER, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA97-691-CCB)

Submitted: February 26, 1998 Decided: March 20, 1998

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Robin Woods, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, David Jonathan Taube, Assistant Attorney General,

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:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. Woods v. Sizer, No. CA-97-691-CCB (D. Md.

Nov. 19, 1997). 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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

April 12, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-11445

Carefree of Colorado: 

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

_04.15.19.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,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel