alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 21**

 

 

The following entities aresubsidiaries of the Company as of September 30, 2003:

 

Gretna, Sealy, Traverse CityFinance Company, Inc.

Gretna, Sealy, Traverse CityOutlet Centers, L.L.C.

Holland Outlet Center, LLC

Holland Outlet Center Finance Company,Inc.

Horizon Group Properties, L.P.

Horizon Huntley LLC

Horizon Huntley Finance LLC

Huntley Development LimitedPartnership

Huntley Meadows ResidentialVenture

Lakeshore Marketplace, LLC

Lakeshore Marketplace FinanceCompany, Inc.

Laughlin Finance Company, Inc.

Laughlin Holdings LLC

Laughlin Outlet Center LLC

Medford Finance Company, Inc.

Medford Holdings LLC

Medford Outlet Center LLC

Third HGI, Inc.

Third HGI, L.L.C.

Third Horizon Group LimitedPartnership

Third Horizon Roseville LLC

Tulare Finance Company, Inc.

Tulare Outlet Center, L.P.

Warrenton Finance Company, Inc.

Warrenton Holdings LLC

Warrenton Outlet Center LLC

5000 Hakes Drive LLC

5000 Hakes Drive Holdings LLC

5000 Hakes Drive FinanceCompany, Inc.

 

1

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           10544
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     5129
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 16693
<PP&E>                                           64342
<DEPRECIATION>                                   29222
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   51813
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           126338
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         10062
<OTHER-SE>                                    (320901)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     51813
<SALES>                                          18769
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 22290
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   396057
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (373767)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (373767)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (373767)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.10)
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Phillip Pressley, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph A. Mazur, J.), rendered February 19, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to an indeterminate term of from 12 years’ to life imprisonment, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was apprehended within minutes after committing a burglary, having been observed emerging from a window carrying a black plastic bag containing two VCRs and a black leather jacket. While there were inconsistencies in the eyewitness testimony, these inconsistencies were for the jury to resolve and, in view of defendant’s swift apprehension while in possession of the proceeds of the burglary, his guilt was clearly established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Defendant’s *pro se*complaints regarding various statements by the prosecutor in summation have either been unpreserved for our review by an objection at trial or were responsive to statements made by defense counsel in summation. There was no error in denying the motion to suppress the prompt, on-the-scene showup identification, nor was defendant’s sentence, as a persistent violent felony offender, excessive.

We have reviewed the remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Asch, Wallach and Smith, JJ.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4576

United Scope LLC: 

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

_05.09.19.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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5707

Whirlpool Corporation: 

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

_5-30-2019.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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXHIBIT 32.1



Section 906 Certification



The following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and shall not be deemed filed pursuant to any provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or any other securities law.



Each of the undersigned certifies that the foregoing Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Corvis Corporation.



|         |  |                                                              |  |  |  |          |  |                                                            
|-------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------ |  |  |  | -------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------
|         |  |                                                              |  | 
|         |  | /s/    David R. Huber                                        |  |  |  |          |  | /s/    Lynn D. Anderson                                    
|         |  |                                                              |  | 
|Name:    |  | David R. Huber                                               |  |  |  | Name:    |  | Lynn D. Anderson                                           
|Title:   |  | Chairman of the Board, President,and Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | Title:   |  | Senior Vice President, ChiefFinancial Officer and Treasurer
|Company: |  | Corvis Corporation                                           |  |  |  | Company: |  | Corvis Corporation                                         
|Date:    |  | May 10, 2004                                                 |  |  |  | Date:    |  | May 10, 2004
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned
officer of Conceptus, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that:



Date:
March 13, 2009

|                                                                |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ GREGORY E. LICHTWARDT                                       |  | 
|Gregory E. Lichtwardt                                           |  | 
|Executive Vice President, Treasurer and
Chief Financial Officer |  | 

---



QuickLinks
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3972

Enerpac:

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/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.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 the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6344

Diebold Nixdorf Incorporated:

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

_05.09.19.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 the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of Mothers Work, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2006 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Edward M. Krell, Executive Vice President—Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

| /s/ EDWARD  M. KRELL                                |     |
|----------------------------------------------------------|----------|
| Edward M. Krell                                          |     |
| *Executive Vice President—Chief  Financial Officer* | * * |
| December 13, 2006                                   |     |

 

----
##### 



Exhibit 10.21
 AMSURG CORP.
NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
 THIS NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT st
 WHEREAS,
 NOW, THEREFORE,
 Grant of Option
   Timing of Exercise .
 Manner of Exercise




---



##### 



Termination of Option
 Termination by Death
 Termination by Reason of Disability
 Voluntary Termination
 Change in Control
 No Right to Continued Employment or Service on the Board
 Adjustment to Option Stock
 2




---



##### 



Section 4.2
 Amendments to Option
 Limited Transferability
 Plan Governs
 Restrictive Covenants
 Confidentiality .
 3




---



##### 



Non-Solicitation.
    Severability
 Notices
 To the Company:
    
    AmSurg Corp.20 Burton Hills BoulevardNashville, Tennessee 37215Attn: Director of Human ResourcesTo the Colleague:
    
    The address then maintained with respect to the Colleague in the
Companys records.
 Governing Law
 Resolution of Disputes
 Successors in Interest
 4




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
 AMSURG CORP.By:
    /s/ Christopher A. HoldenName:
    
    Christopher A. HoldenTitle:
    
    Chief Executive Officer COLLEAGUESignature:
    /s/ Ken P. McDonaldPrint Name:
    

    Ken P. McDonald 5
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### SEP 14 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
CARL WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff - Appellant, and SANDI B., Plaintiff,
v. No. 98-1087 (D.C. No. 97-D-2769) WAYNE SCOTT, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, (D. Colo.)

Defendant - Appellee.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON , McKAY , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

After examining Plaintiff-Appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argumentwould not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9.-2-

The case is therefore ordered submitted without ora l argument. Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se , appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights action and his motionto proceed in forma pauperis [IFP] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court dism issed the action without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to comply with t he court’s previous orders requiring him to cure several deficiencies in his c omplaint and his 28 U.S.C. § 1915 motion. The district court also denied Plai ntiff leave to proceed IFP on appeal. He renews his motion to proceed IFP on app eal with this court. From our review of the record, we cannot say that t he district court erred in dismissing Plaintiff’s action for failure to cure the deficiencies necessary to proceed with his civil rights claim and to proceed IFP. The fact that Plaintiff’s pro se pleadings are construed liberally under Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), and Hall v. Bellmon , 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991), does not excuse the deficiencies in his pleadings. See Ogden v. San Juan County , 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994), cert. denied , 513 U.S. 1090 (1995). Further, Plaintiff still has not corrected the deficiencies in his 28 U.S.C. § 1915 motion necessary to establish that he is entitled to proce ed IFP on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) & (b)(1). Therefore, we affirm the di smissal of his action without1 Because we affirm the court’s dismissal for failur e to cure deficiencies,

we do not address the merits of Plaintiff’s claim that his constitutional rights were deprived by the unlawful seizure of or interference with his incoming and outgoing mail. -3- prejudice, 1 and we deny his motion to proceed IFP on appeal. DENIED AND DISMISSED.
Entered for the Court
Monroe McKay Circuit Judge
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE )

INSURANCE COMPANY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-2361

)

GLORIA KAYE WOLFORD, JUAN C. )

LONDONO, and ALEXIS CERON, )

)

Respondents. )

)

Opinion filed February 14, 2018. 

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit 

Court for Hillsborough County; Paul L. 

Huey, Judge.

Daniel M. Schwarz of Cole, Scott & 

Kissane, P.A., Plantation, for Petitioner. 

Laura A. Turbe Capaz of Capaz Law 

Firm, P.A., Tampa, for Respondent 

Alexis Ceron.

No appearance for remaining 

Respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Denied. 

CASANUEVA, MORRIS, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Michael D. Queen, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Universal Capital Management, Inc.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this 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 officer(s) 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 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 officer(s) 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:  March 24, 2008



/s/ Michael D. Queen

Michael D. Queen

Principal Executive Officer
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-2018-0025-5881

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
#### Frank RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. Jim JONES, et al., Respondents.

No. WD 43653.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 30, 1991.

Frank Richardson, Pacific, pro se.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Bruce Farmer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondents.

Before LOWENSTEIN, P.J., and TURNAGE and FENNER, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from dismissal of an inmate’s petition for injunctive relief and damages against prison officials.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).