alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.77


                                     TRUMP

                                   TAJ MAHAL

                                 CASINO RESORT

                                                       January 4, 2000



Mark A. Brown
225 W. Seaview Avenue
Linwood, New Jersey 08221

        RE:   Assignment and Amendment of the Employment Agreement dated
              March 6, 1998 between Mark A. Brown and Trump's Castle
              Associates ("TCA") (the "Agreement")

Dear Mr. Brown:

        This letter will confirm that the Agreement is hereby assigned to Trump
Taj Mahal Associates ("TTMA") with your consent and understanding that all
obligations and liabilities thereunder shall be assumed by and be the
responsibility of TTMA and that TCA shall have no further liability or
obligation with respect to the Agreement or arising out of your previous
employment thereunder. To the extent the Agreement refers to TCA, it is
understood and agreed that the Agreement shall be deemed to refer to TTMA.

        This will also confirm our agreement to amend the Agreement hereby by
amending the Expiration Date to January 2, 2003. As consideration for this
amendment, your annual base salary as stated in Paragraph 3A of the Agreement
shall be amended as follows (i) Six Hundred thousand ($600,000.00) Dollars for
the calendar year 2000, (ii) Six Hundred Fifty Thousand ($650,00.00) Dollars
commencing January 1, 2001 and (iii) Seven Hundred Thousand ($700,000.00)
commencing January 1, 2002. In recognition of your employment with TCA, you
shall, upon commencement of your employment with TTMA, receive a bonus in the
amount of One Hundred Thousand ($100,000.00) Dollars net of all applicable taxes
and deductions. In addition, the Agreement is also hereby amended to provide
that you shall receive a discretionary bonus based upon the profitability of
Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort.

        This Assignment shall be effective as of January 3, 2000.

        Except to the extent modified herein, you and TTMA hereby ratify the
Agreement and agree that all other such terms, conditions and obligations
contained therein remain in full force and effect as stated in the Agreement.


                               Very truly yours,


                               DONALD J. TRUMP
                               Chairman
                               Trump's Castle Associates
                               Trump Taj Mahal Associates


Agreed to this 3 day of January, 2000.

/s/ Mark A. Brown
------------------
Mark A. Brown
#### In the Matter of Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, Appellant, v Nationwide Insurance Company, Respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Di Noto, J.), dated September 27, 1988, which denied the application.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the petition to permanently stay arbitration is granted.

On May 30, 1982, a car operated by Randolph Staley was involved in a motor vehicle accident with a then unknown vehicle. As a result of the accident, Staley’s insurer, Nationwide Insurance Company (hereinafter Nationwide), paid a series of claims. Thereafter, Nationwide learned that the offending vehicle was operated by Yancy L. Rodriguez, who had been insured by Aetna Casualty and Surety Company (hereinafter Aetna).

Nationwide sought reimbursement from Aetna, but Aetna refused to reimburse Nationwide, claiming that it had can*526celed Rodriguez’s policy before the accident. In response to Aetna’s refusal, Nationwide, on or about March 30, 1984, served a "notice to arbitrate”. In response to the notice, Aetna again denied that it covered the Rodriguez vehicle at the time of the accident.

The notice to arbitrate was rejected by Arbitration Forums, Inc., on the ground that pursuant to Aetna’s answer, Aetna had provided no insurance coverage for the Rodriguez vehicle at the time in question. On February 2, 1988, after a delay of almost four years, and without taking any action with respect to Aetna’s claim that on the date of the accident it did not, cover the Rodriguez vehicle, Nationwide served another "notice to arbitrate”. Thereafter, Aetna brought the instant proceeding seeking a permanent stay of arbitration on the ground that the arbitration demanded by Nationwide was, *inter alia,*time barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations. The court denied the petition. We now reverse.

The question of whether a tort-feasor’s carrier did or did not properly cancel the tort-feasor’s coverage before the accident is a matter to be determined by the court *(see,*11 NYCRR 65.10 [a] [5]; *State-wide Ins. Co. v Buffalo Ins. Co.,*105 AD2d 315, 320). In this instance, the tort-feasor’s carrier, Aetna, claimed, from the outset, that it had properly canceled the tort-feasor Rodriguez’s coverage, an assertion which prompted the Arbitration Forums, Inc., to reject Nationwide’s notice to arbitrate. Rather than litigate the question of coverage by seeking a declaratory judgment—an avenue which would have tolled the Statute of Limitations *(see,*11 NYCRR 65.10 [d] [5] [i])—Nationwide allowed almost four years to elapse, while the Statute of Limitations expired, before it submitted, in February 1988, yet another notice to arbitrate. Under the circumstances, the order appealed from is reversed, and the petition to permanently stay arbitration is granted. Bracken, J. P., Fiber, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4981 

To prohibit authority to provide financial assistance for, or approve, tolling 

on Interstate Route 5 or Interstate Route 205 in the State of Oregon 

under certain tolling programs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2023 

Mrs. CHAVEZ-DEREMER introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To prohibit authority to provide financial assistance for, or 

approve, tolling on Interstate Route 5 or Interstate 

Route 205 in the State of Oregon under certain tolling 

programs. 

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 ‘‘No Tolls on Oregon 

5 Roads Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4981 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR TOLLING ON 

2 INTERSTATE ROUTE 5 OR INTERSTATE 

3 ROUTE 205. 

4 (a) CONGESTION RELIEF PROGRAM.—Section 

5 129(d)(6) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 

6 adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘(D) EXCEPTION.—The Secretary shall 

8 not allow the use of tolls on Interstate Route 5 

9 or Interstate Route 205 in the State of Oregon 

10 as part of a project carried out with a grant 

11 under the program.’’. 

12 (b) TOLL ROADS, BRIDGES, TUNNELS, AND FER13 RIES.—Section 129 of title 23, United States Code, is 

14 amended by adding at the end the following: 

15 ‘‘(e) PROHIBITION ON TOLLING ON CERTAIN INTER16 STATES.—Notwithstanding this section or any other provi17 sion of law, the Secretary may not approve Federal par18 ticipation in the tolling of Interstate Route 5 or Interstate 

19 Route 205 in the State of Oregon.’’. 

20 (c) VALUE PRICING PILOT PROGRAM.—Section 

21 1012(b)(4) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Ef22 ficiency Act of 1991 (23 U.S.C. 129 note(b)) is amended 

23 by inserting ‘‘, except that the Secretary shall not allow 

24 tolling of Interstate Route 5 or Interstate Route 205 in 

25 the State of Oregon’’ before the period at the end. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Charles FRAZIER, Appellant. Charles FRAZIER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 64907, 67474.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

March 5, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 11, 1996.

N. Scott Rosenblum, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David G. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CRAHAN, P.J., and CRANDALL and DOWD, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the judgment upon his conviction by a jury of one count of possession of a controlled substance, § 195.202, RSMo 1992, one count of delivery of a controlled substance, § 195.211, RSMo 1992, and one count of resisting arrest, § 575.150, RSMo 1992, for which he was sentenced to concurrent terms of fifteen, fifteen and ten years imprisonment respectively. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evi-dentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgments are affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
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-2018-0025-5788

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
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

 

Pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Robert P.Akins, Chief Executive Officer of Cymer, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the“Registrant”), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

1.               The Registrant’s annual report on Form 10-K(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934.

 

2.               The information contained in the Reportfairly presents in all material respects the results of operations of theRegistrant for the periods covered by the Report and the Registrant’s financialcondition as of the end of those periods.

 
| Date: March 16, 2004 | /s/ Robert P. Akins                      |   |
|----------------------|------------------------------------------|--------|
|                 | Robert P. Akins, Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Cymer,Inc. and will be retained by Cymer, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Exhibit
32.2
















Principal
Financial 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, Allan J. Kent, Chief
Financial 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/ Allan J.
Kent








Allan J.
Kent


Chief
Financial Officer


June 3,
2008
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Victor Ray ABBOTT, Appellant. Victor Ray ABBOTT, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. WD 44599, WD 46261.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 1, 1993.

Judith C. LaRose, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before FENNER, P.J., and SPINDEN and SMART, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This is a consolidated appeal from a conviction of stealing a motor vehicle by deceit, § 570.030, RSMo 1986, and from a denial of a Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We dismiss the appeal from the conviction. We affirm the denial of the Rule 29.15 motion. Rules 30.25(b) and 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-2018-0025-4567

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
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-2018-0025-6178

Fluor Enterprises, 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
Exhibit 32.2









Principal Financial 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 for the year ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Allan J. Kent, Chief Financial 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/ Allan J. Kent





Allan J. Kent

Chief Financial Officer

March 30, 2005
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-5761

Alo USA Inc:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20.

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

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

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6696

C&U Americas, 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 did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5225 

To amend section 199A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 

the deduction under that section to apply to qualified BDC interest 

dividends in the same manner as qualified REIT dividends. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 18, 2023 

Mr. ARRINGTON (for himself, Mr. BOYLE of Pennsylvania, Mr. LAHOOD, and 

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend section 199A of the Internal Revenue Code of 

1986 to allow the deduction under that section to apply 

to qualified BDC interest dividends in the same manner 

as qualified REIT dividends. 

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 ‘‘Small Business Inves5 tor Tax Parity Act of 2023’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5225 IH

1 SEC. 2. DEDUCTION FOR QUALIFIED BUSINESS INCOME TO 

2 APPLY TO CERTAIN INTEREST DIVIDENDS OF 

3 QUALIFIED BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT COM4 PANIES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsections (b)(1)(B) and (c)(1) 

6 of section 199A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are 

7 each amended by inserting ‘‘, qualified BDC interest divi8 dends,’’ after ‘‘qualified REIT dividends’’. 

9 (b) QUALIFIED BDC INTEREST DIVIDEND DE10 FINED.—Section 199A(e) of the Internal Revenue Code 

11 of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following 

12 new paragraph: 

13 ‘‘(5) QUALIFIED BDC INTEREST DIVIDEND.— 

14 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘qualified 

15 BDC interest dividend’ means any dividend 

16 from an electing business development company 

17 received during the taxable year which is attrib18 utable to net interest income of such company 

19 which is properly allocable to a qualified trade 

20 or business of such company. 

21 ‘‘(B) ELECTING BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

22 COMPANY.—For purposes of this paragraph, the 

23 term ‘electing business development company’ 

24 means a business development company (as de25 fined in section 2(a) of the Investment Com26 pany Act of 1940) which has an election in efVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:18 Aug 24, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5225.IH H5225

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 5225 IH

1 fect under section 851 to be treated as a regu2 lated investment company.’’. 

3 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

4 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

5 December 31, 2024. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
Order entered October 5 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 15 - 01190 - CV IN RE W.O.H., Relator Original Proceeding from the 304th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. JD - 25148 - W 

### O RDER Before Justice Lang

- Miers, Evans and Whitehill Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus. We ORDER relator to bear the costs of this original proceeding.
/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE