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

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4854

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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 52 (Friday, March 17, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Pages 14484-14485]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6840]



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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Agency Meetings

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and 
Exchange Commission will hold the following meetings during the week of 
March 20, 1995.
    An open meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 21, 1995, at 10:00 
a.m., in Room 1C30. A closed meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 21, 
1995, following the 10:00 a.m. open meeting.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
[[Page 14485]] Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the 
closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the 
matters may also be present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (8), (9) (A) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(4), 
(8), (9) (i) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at 
a closed meeting.
    Commissioner Wallman, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the closed meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the open meeting scheduled for Tuesday, March 
21, 1995, at 10:00 a.m., will be:

    The Commission will hear oral argument on an appeal by Ahmed 
Mohamed Soliman, a registered investment adviser and formerly a 
registered representative, from the decision of an administrative 
law judge. For further information, please contact Kathleen A. 
O'Mara at (202) 942-0923.

    The subject matter of the closed meeting scheduled for Tuesday, 
March 21, 1995, following the 10:00 a.m. open meeting will be:

    Post oral argument discussion.
    Institution of injunctive actions.
    Settlement of injunctive actions.
    Institution of administrative proceedings of an enforcement 
nature.
    Settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement 
nature.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to 
ascretain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, 
please contact: The Office of the Secretary (202) 942-7070.

    Dated: March 16, 1995.
 Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-6840 Filed 3-15-95; 3:48 pm]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Eddie R. STEPHENSON, Appellant.

No. WD 43372.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Nov. 3, 1992.

Susan L. Hogan, Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before BERREY, P.J., and ULRICH and SMART, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from a conviction for murder in the second degree and armed criminal ac*390tion; from the court’s finding of prior, persistent and class X offender; from concurrent prison sentences of twenty-five years on the second degree murder conviction and ten years on the armed criminal action conviction; and from denial of Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing.

Judgement affirmed. Rule 30.25(b) and Rule 84.16(b).
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 4822

_____________________________
J OSEPH L. T OMLIN , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Tatiana Salvador , Judge

. February 15, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
D ISMISSED as untimely.

M AKAR , W INOKUR , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

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

.

_____________________________

Joseph L. Tomlin, pro se
, Appellant.2 Ashley B

. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 4, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 17097]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8392]



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


Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

Time and Date: 11:00 a.m., Monday, April 10, 1995.

Place: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, C Street 
entrance between 20th and 21st Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered:

    1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal 
Reserve System employees.
    2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced 
meeting.

Contact Person for More Information: Mr. Joseph R. Coyne, Assistant to 
the Board; (202) 452-3204. You may call (202) 452-3207, beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before this meeting, for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting.

    Dated: March 31, 1995.
William W. Wiles,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-8392 Filed 3-31-95; 3:27 pm]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
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-2018-0025-5615

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
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-2018-0025-5583

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
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7060
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CARROL SCOTT TRIBBLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-95-834, CA-97-1380-8-13) Submitted: May 28, 1998 Decided: June 9, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Lance Sheek, W ELCH & ASSOCIATES, Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellant. Harold Watson Gowdy, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Carrol Scott Tribble seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court'sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Tribble , Nos. CR-95-834, CA-97-1380- 8-13 (D.S.C. July 15, 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
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

CAROLYN M. GEWEYE, Appellant, v. WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, as Owner Trustee of the Residential Credit Opportunities Trust V-D, Appellee. No. 2D22-2816 November 8, 2023 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Edward Nicholas, Judge. H. Daniel McKillop of McKillop Law Firm, Jacksonville, for Appellant. Melisa Manganelli of Law Offices of Mandel, Manganelli and Leider, P.A., Boca Raton, and Jennifer Chapkin of Chapkin Law, Boca Raton, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. CASANUEVA, LUCAS, and LABRIT, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
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-2018-0025-2996

Manncorp, 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
exv10w3






Exhibit 10.3




2010 AMENDMENT TO

2008 PERFORMANCE UNITS AGREEMENT




     This 2010 Amendment (the “Amendment”) is entered into effective March 17, 2010, and further
amends the Performance Units Agreement dated January 2, 2008 (the “Grant Agreement”) between
Peabody Energy Corporation (the “Company”) and Gregory H. Boyce (the “Grantee”).



RECITALS




      WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company deems it appropriate and in the best
interests of the Company and the Grantee to further amend the Grant Agreement as described herein,
effective on the date set forth above;



     NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING, the parties hereby agree as follows:



     1. Section 1.7 of the Grant Agreement is revised to read in its entirety as follows:




     Section 1.7 — “Determination Date” shall mean the earlier to occur of
(i) December 31, 2010 and (ii) a Change of Control.



     2. Section 3.2 of the Grant Agreement, which sets forth vesting and termination
conditions for the award, is revised so paragraph (a) reads in its entirety as follows:




     (a) upon a Termination of Employment on account of the Grantee’s death or
Disability, all of the Performance Units shall become immediately vested and the
Grantee shall become entitled to the Incentive Amount calculated and payable
pursuant to Article IV hereof with respect to such vested Performance Units;



     3. Section 4.2(b) of the Grant Agreement is revised to read in its entirety as
follows:




     (b) Specified Employee. If a distribution to the Grantee is triggered
by a Termination of Employment other than due to death and the Grantee is a
“specified employee” (as such term is defined in Section 409A and the applicable
regulations or other guidance issued thereunder, but generally meaning one of the
Company’s key employees within the meaning of Code Section 416(i)), the Incentive
Amount shall be paid to the Grantee six (6) months after the distribution date that
otherwise would apply.



     4. In all other respects, the Grant Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full
force and effect.



[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]





 









 








     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed and delivered by the parties hereto
on the date first set forth above.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	 	 	PEABODY ENERGY CORPORATION	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Sharon D. Fiehler
 

	 	 
	 
	 

	 	Name:
	 	Sharon D. Fiehler	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Executive Vice President and Chief

Administrative Officer	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Its:	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	/s/ Gregory H. Boyce
 

GREGORY H. BOYCE
	 	 






2
#### David Hurwitz, Respondent, v Eagan Real Estate, Inc., Appellant.

Mercure, J.

Appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court (Connor, J.), entered November 27, 1989 in Greene County, which, upon reargument, granted plaintiff’s *798motion for summary judgment, and (2) from the judgment entered thereon.

Plaintiff offered to purchase real property and in connection therewith signed a written "offer to purchase” form prepared by defendant, the seller’s real estate broker, and paid defendant a $5,000 deposit, by the terms of the instrument "to be held pending the acceptance of this offer, *at which time it shall become a part of the purchase price”*(emphasis supplied). The seller signed the "acceptance” portion of the form, by which he agreed, *inter alia,*to pay a $20,000 real estate commission to defendant, the deposit to be applied thereto, but was thereafter unwilling to convey title to plaintiff in accordance with the agreement. Defendant refused to refund the deposit, prompting plaintiff to commence this action. Defendant asserted as a defense that, by virtue of the above-stated language of the purchase agreement, the deposit had become part of the purchase price and, thus, could be retained by it, in partial satisfaction of its commission. Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion for the relief demanded in the complaint was granted by Supreme Court upon reargument. Defendant appeals.

There should be an affirmance. Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting reargument and, upon reargument, correctly granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff. It is fundamental that the vendee, on the vendor’s breach of a contract of sale, is entitled to the return of his payments on account of the purchase price *(see, Northridge v Moore,*118 NY 419, 422; 62 NY Jur, Vendor and Purchaser, § 162, at 442) and the contract language relied upon by defendant does not provide otherwise. The contention that plaintiff is bound by the seller’s agreement to apply the deposit to payment of defendant’s commission is specious. As a final matter, we note that the denial of defendant’s motion for a change of venue was not reduced to an order, has not been appealed and is now academic at any rate.

Order and judgment affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.
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-2018-0025-3438

Scosche Industries, 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
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-2018-0025-5819

Scosche Industries, 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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 57 (Friday, March 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15622]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7353]



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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Aviation Proceedings; Agreements Filed During the Week Ended 
March 17, 1995

    The following Agreements were filed with the Department of 
Transportation under the provisions of 49 U.S.C 412 and 414. Answers 
may be filed within 21 days of date of filing.

    Docket Number: 50211.
    Date filed: March 15, 1995.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: COMP Telex Reso 024f, Local Currency Fare Changes--
Zimbabwe.
    Proposed Effective Date: April 1, 1995.

    Docket Number: 50217.
    Date filed: March 17, 1995.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: COMP Reso/C 0620 dated February 24, 1995, Expedited 
Composite Resos r-1 to r-15.
    Proposed Effective Date: expedited April 1, 1995.
Paulette V. Twine,
Chief, Documentary Services Division.
[FR Doc. 95-7353 Filed 3-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P