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

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.02

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with this quarterly report of ML Aspect FuturesAccess LLC (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this "Report"), I, Michael L.
Pungello, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

1. This 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: August 12, 2005
-----------------------

By /s/ MICHAEL L. PUNGELLO
   -----------------------
Michael L. Pungello
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
exv10w17







 




    Exhibit
    10.17





 




    THIRD
    AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EXECUTIVE SERVICES
    AGREEMENT





 



    This Third Amendment (the “Amendment”) to that certain
    Amended and Restated Executive Services Agreement dated as of
    November 30, 2009 (the “Employment Agreement”) by
    and between Chateau Holdings, Inc. (the “Lender”),
    Robert Katz (the “Employee”) and The Film Department
    Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, as successor-in-interest
    to The Film Department Holdings LLC, (the “Company”),
    is made as of April 27, 2010 (the “Effective
    Date”), and is entered into by and between Company, Lender
    and Employee.





 



    WHEREAS, Company, Lender and Employee have previously entered
    into the Employment Agreement; and





 



    WHEREAS, Company, Lender and Employee have agreed to amend
    specific terms of the Employment Agreement in accordance with
    the terms set forth below. All capitalized terms not defined
    herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the
    Employment Agreement.





 



    NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the agreements made herein,
    the parties hereto agree as follows:





 



    1. The Employment Agreement is hereby amended by deleting
    both references to “April 30, 2010” in
    Sections 1 and 4, and substituting “May 14,
    2010” in lieu thereof in both instances.





 



    2. This Employment Agreement is intended to comply with
    Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
    amended (the “Code”) and the regulations and guidance
    promulgated thereunder (collectively, “Code
    Section 409A”) and will be interpreted in a manner
    intended to comply with Code Section 409A.





 



    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Third
    Amendment as of the date first above written.




 



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
    THE FILM DEPARTMENT HOLDINGS INC.
	
 
	
    CHATEAU HOLDINGS, INC.

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
    /s/ Mark Gill
	
 
	
    /s/ Robert Katz

	
    

	
 
	
    


	

    By:


	
 
	
    Mark Gill
	
 
	
    By:
	
 
	
    Robert Katz

	

    Its:


	
 
	
    CEO
	
 
	
    Its:
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
    /s/ Robert Katz

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
    


	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
    Robert Katz
ex10_1.htm


     

    
      PROMISSORY
NOTE

      


      $8,000                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
Dated April 30th, 2010

      


      FOR VALUE
RECEIVED, the undersigned promises to pay to the order of _AMPHION INVESTMENTS
CORP._____ (the “Holder”), the sum of __EIGHT THOUSAND____ ($8,000) DOLLARS to
pay off existing debt for __ACCOUNTING AND AUDIT FEES___ for Phoenix Energy
Resource Corp., with an interest rate of 8%,

      payable
_12__ months from the date of execution hereof.

      


      THE TOTAL
OF ___EIGHT THOUSAND____ AND NO/00 ($8,000) DOLLARS, PLUS ACCRUED INTEREST, WILL
BE PAID, _APRIL_ 30 TH __, 2011.

      


      IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Maker has caused this note to be executed by its duly
authorized officer on this __30__ day of __APRIL____, 2010.

      


      MAKER

      


      Phoenix
Energy Resource Corp.

       

      By:/s/ Rene Soullier

      Rene
Soullier

      President
#### Luveada Alice MOZINGO, Respondent, v. Robert E. MOZINGO, Appellant.

No. WD 47324.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Oct. 19, 1993.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Nov. 30, 1993.

Carl W. Bussey, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jorge Elliott, Kansas City, for respondent.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The appellant appeals from the courts order setting aside a motion to quash garnishment.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4452

OMRON Management Center of America, 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

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-5286

ECM Industries 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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5613

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
<PAGE>


                                  Exhibit 99.3

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 0F THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Killbuck Bancshares, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Diane
Knowles, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350, as enacted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

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



/s/ Diane S. Knowles

Diane S. Knowles
Chief Financial Officer
August 12, 2002
#### Steven Anthony BUTLER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 70745.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

June 20, 1990.

Andrew L. Jefferson, Jr., Houston, for appellant.

John B. Holmes, Jr., Dist. Atty., and Winston E. Cochran, Jr., George Lam-bright, Belinda Hill and Maria Hayes, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*662OPINION

WHITE, Judge.

Appeal is taken from a conviction for capital murder. Y.T.C.A., Penal Code, § 19.03(a)(2). After finding appellant guilty, the jury returned affirmative findings to the special issues submitted to them pursuant to Art. 37.071, V.A.C.C.P. Punishment was assessed at death.

Appellant has filed a brief raising ten points of error. In his sixth point of error, appellant alleges the trial court erred when it failed to file findings of fact and conclusions of law following a hearing in which the trial court denied appellant’s motion to suppress several purported confessions. Appellant states this Court is required’ to abate this appeal and direct the trial court to prepare and file the findings of fact and conclusions of law mandated by Art. 38.22, § 6, V.A.C.C.P. *Wicker v. State,*740 S.W.2d 779, at 783-784 (Tex.Cr.App.1987), cert. denied 485 U.S. 938, 108 S.Ct. 1117, 99 L.Ed.2d 278 and *Harris v. State,*771 S.W.2d 10 (Tex.App.—San Antonio, 1989). In its reply brief, the State agrees with appellant’s sixth point of error that this appeal should be abated while the trial court files its findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding appellant’s confession. The State argues that an abatement is the most relief that appellant should receive on this point.

This Court orders the appeal in the instant cause be abated. This cause is remanded to the trial court to make the findings of fact and conclusions of law called for by Art. 38.22, § 6, V.A.C.C.P. Following that, the trial court shall promptly forward the properly perfected record to this Court.

It is so ordered.
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 23

The Board of Directors
First State Bancorporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
333-17727) on Form S-3, and (No. 33-92056 and No. 333-3048) on Form S-8 of First
State Bancorporation of our report dated January 19, 2001, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of First State Bancorporation and subsidiary as of
December 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, comprehensive income, stockholders' equity and cash flows for each
of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2000, which report
appears in the December 31, 2000, annual report on Form 10-K of First State
Bancorporation.

KPMG LLP

Albuquerque, New Mexico
March 21, 2001
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-17-00254-CR

JASON ALAN MCCONNELL,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 1

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15-03699-CRM-CCL1

ABATEMENT ORDER

Appellant’s brief was originally due February 26, 2018. After two extensions of 

time were granted, Appellant’s brief was due June 1, 2018. On May 29, 2018, appellant 

requested a 15 day extension because counsel recently discovered that he only had a 

limited time to access the reporter’s record through a link provided by the reporter and 

has not had access to the record. 

In an order issued June 13, 2018, the Court questioned why counsel had not 

discovered this potential problem in the five months since the record had been filed and 
McConnell v. State Page 2

whether counsel could read the record and prepare and file an adequate brief within, at 

most, 17 days. Nevertheless, the Court granted the motion and ordered appellant’s brief 

due June 15, 2018. The Court also warned counsel that the failure to timely file appellant’s 

brief would result in the Court abating this appeal to determine if appellant is receiving 

effective assistance of counsel. The Court has not received appellant’s brief. 

Accordingly, we abate this appeal to the trial court to conduct any necessary 

hearings within 21 days of the date of this Order pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 38.8(b)(2) and (3). TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2), (3).

The supplemental clerk’s and reporter’s records required by Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 38.8(b)(2) and (3), if any, are ordered to be filed within 28 days of 

the date of this Order. See id.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Order issued and filed June 27, 2018
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 2949]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-729]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[I.D. 122794B]


Endangered Species; Permits

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Issuance of Modification 3 to Scientific Research and 
Enhancement Permit 848 (P507D).

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

    On October 27, 1994, an application was filed by the Washington 
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) for a modification to their 
scientific research and enhancement Permit 848. Permit 848 authorizes 
WDFW to collect adult, listed, Snake River spring chinook salmon 
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) from the Tucannon River for a captive 
broodstock program and to release the progeny of the listed adult 
salmon collected for broodstock.
    For Modification 3 to Permit 848, WDFW requested an alteration of 
their annual release strategy for the hatchery progeny of the listed 
adult salmon collected for broodstock as authorized by the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) and the NMFS 
regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 
217-222). WDFW proposes to volitionally release one third to one half 
of 45,000 - 64,000 presmolts or smolts from the hatchery and to 
outplant the remainder several miles upstream of the hatchery into the 
upper Tucannon River watershed during February through April of each 
year. WDFW had previously been authorized to scatter-plant up to 64,000 
hatchery salmon fry in or near October of each year.
    Notice is hereby given that on December 30, 1994, as authorized by 
the provisions of the ESA, NMFS issued Modification 3 to Permit 848 for 
the above taking, subject to certain conditions set forth therein.
    Issuance of this modification, as required by the ESA, was based on 
a finding that such modification: (1) Was applied for in good faith; 
(2) will not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species which is 
the subject of the permit; and (3) is consistent with the purposes and 
policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. This modification was also 
issued in accordance with and is subject to parts 217-222 of Title 50 
CFR, the NMFS regulations governing listed species permits.
    The application, permit, and supporting documentation are available 
for review by interested persons in the following offices, by 
appointment:
    Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, NOAA, 1315 East-West Highway, 
Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226 (301-713-1401); and
    Environmental and Technical Services Division, NMFS, NOAA, 525 
North East Oregon St., Suite 500, Portland, OR 97232 (503-230-5400).

    Dated: January 5, 1995.
William W. Fox, Jr.,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 95-729 Filed 1-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
#### Robert CHOATE, Movant, v. KOORSEN PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC. and Sexton Fire Protection, Inc., Respondents.

No. 96-SC-131-I.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

Aug. 29, 1996.

OPINION AND ORDER

This appeal arose from the Court of Appeals affirmance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by the Jefferson Circuit Court. The TRO was set aside by order of the Chief Justice, rendered March 7, 1996, pending full review by this Court. We now dismiss this appeal as moot.

Respondent Koorsen filed the underlying action against Choate, on August 2, 1995, for injunctive relief and monetary damages. The action alleged a breach, by Choate, of a non-compete agreement Choate entered into with respondent Sexton. The Choate-Sexton contract was assigned, without Choate’s consent, to Koorsen when it purchased Sexton. Choate did, in fact, go to work for Hampton-Cross, following the sale of Sexton to Koor-sen.

Koorsen’s initial motion for a restraining order was denied on August 15, 1995. On October 5, 1995, Koorsen amended its complaint and added Sexton as a co-plaintiff. On October 11, 1995, the plaintiffs moved again for a temporary restraining order.

Plaintiffs sought to restrain Chaote from working in the fire protection business, based of course, on the non-compete contract he had signed with Sexton. It was alleged that Sexton, Hampton-Cross and Koorsen all were competitors in the fire protection business. Following a hearing, a successor circuit judge granted the temporary injunction on January 10,1996.

Choate appealed to the Court of Appeals which issued a temporary stay of the Order, pending a decision by a full panel of that court. Subsequently, by a vote of 2-1, the Court of Appeals reinstated the temporary injunction.

Choate appealed to this Court seeking dissolution of the temporary injunction. The full Court heard oral argument on the sole issue of whether the TRO was properly issued. We now dismiss this appeal as moot. We do not reach the question of whether a non-compete agreement is assignable. That issue is still pending and alive for review on direct appeal.

It is uncontested that Choate terminated his employment under the contract on May 27, 1995. The non-compete contract prohibited Choate from engaging in the fire protection business “for a period of 12 months immediately following termination of employment, whether voluntary or involuntary.” At this point in time, Choate has not been employed by Sexton under this contract for over a year. Any decision by this Court would be meaningless. It is well established that this Court is “required to dismiss an appeal where the reversal would not accomplish any result, or where the affirmance would benefit no one.” *Brown v. Baumer,*301 Ky. 315,191 S.W.2d 235, 238 (1945).

*185Furthermore, respondents’ motion for leave to file a supplemental brief is denied.

For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is dismissed as moot.

All concur.

ENTERED: August 29,1996.

/s/ Robert F. Stephens Chief Justice
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19399]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9541]



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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5193-9]


Common Sense Initiative Council Automobile Manufacturing Sector; 
Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notification of rescheduling public advisory Common Sense 
Initiative Council (CSIC) Auto Manufacturing Sector Subcommittee 
Meeting; Open Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-
463, notice is hereby given that the CSIC Automobile Manufacturing 
Sector Subcommittee meeting scheduled for Thursday, April 19, 1995, has 
been rescheduled for Thursday, May 4, 1995, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. 
Eastern Standard Time, at the Embassy Suites at Chevy Chase Pavillion, 
4300 Military Road, N.W. (at Wisconsin Ave.), Washington, D.C. 20015, 
phone (202) 362-9300. Seating will be available on a first come, first 
served basis. For further meeting information contact Carol Kemker, 
Designated Federal Official at (404) 347-3555 extension 4222, Keith 
Mason at (202) 260-1360 or Leila Yim Surrat at (202) 260-0628.
    Three work groups were formed at the first meeting in January, (1) 
Permits; (2) Regulatory Programs; and (3) Lifecycle Management and 
Innovative Technology. At the May 4th meeting reports will be presented 
on draft work plan activities. Information presented will aid in the 
CSIC Automobile Manufacturing Sector Subcommittee discussions about and 
development of a consensus work plan.

INSPECTION OF COMMITTEE DOCUMENTS: Documents relating to the above CSIC 
Automotive Manufacturing Sector Subcommittee announcement will be 
publicly available at the meeting. Thereafter, these documents, 
together with the meeting minutes will be available for public 
inspection in room 2417M of EPA Headquarters, Common Sense Initiative 
Program Staff, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460, phone (202) 260-
7417.

    Dated: April 11, 1995.
Carol L. Kemker,
Designated Federal Official.
[FR Doc. 95-9541 Filed 4-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P