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

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6007

Aisin World Corp. of 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          37,292
<SECURITIES>                                    64,286
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,910
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,225
<INVENTORY>                                        955
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               110,286
<PP&E>                                         402,704
<DEPRECIATION>                                  46,193
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 504,354
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,862
<BONDS>                                        490,489
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            1,239
<PREFERRED>                                         89
<COMMON>                                            97
<OTHER-SE>                                   (154,422)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   504,354
<SALES>                                          1,712
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,895
<CGS>                                              546
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,718
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,338
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,225
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,260
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (39,777)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (39,777)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (42,021)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (4.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (4.41)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 67 (Friday, April 7, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 17851]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8685]





                Sunshine Act Meetings



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 67 / Friday, April 7, 1995 / Sunshine 
Act Meetings
[[Page 17851]] 




FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

TIME AND DATE: 2:30 p.m., Thursday, April 13, 1995.

PLACE: Room 600, 1730 K Street, NW., Washington, DC.

STATUS: Closed [Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552b(c)(10)].

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Commission will consider and act upon the 
following:

    1. In Re: Contests of Respirable Dust Sample Alteration 
Citations, and Keystone Coal Mining Corp., Master Docket No. 91-1 
and Docket Nos. PENN 91-451-R, etc. (Issues include whether the 
judge erred in his framing of the Secretary's burden of proof and in 
finding that the Secretary failed to carry his burden of proving 
that the weight of 75 cited filters from the Urling No. 1 Mine was 
intentionally altered by Keystone Coal Mining Corp.)

    It was determined by a unanimous vote of the Commissioners that 
these matters be discussed in closed session.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFO: Jean Ellen, (202) 653-5629/(202) 708-9300 
for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

    Dated: April 3, 1995.
Jean H. Ellen,

Chief Docket Clerk.

[FR Doc. 95-8685 Filed 4-4-95; 4:22 pm]

BILLING CODE 6735-01-M
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

Solely for the purpose of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and solely to the extent this certification may be applicable to this report, the undersigned hereby certify that this report of Tenthgate Incorporated (the “Company”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

|                     |          |                               |
|--------------------------|---------------|------------------------------------|
| Dated: December 18, 2006 | /s/ Tim Novak |                               |
|                     | Name:         | Tim Novak                          |
|                     | Title:        | President, Chief Executive Officer |
|                     |          | and Chief Financial Officer        |
|                          |               |                                    |  |  |
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5365 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5365

 To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to enter into a lease 
                for a Vet Center in Mankato, Minnesota.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 8, 2023

 Mr. Finstad introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to enter into a lease 
                for a Vet Center in Mankato, Minnesota.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO ENTER INTO A 
              LEASE FOR A VET CENTER IN MANKATO, MINNESOTA.

    Subject to the availability of appropriations for such purpose, the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs may obligate or expend not more than 
$1,400,000 during fiscal years 2024 through 2025 to enter into a lease 
for a Vet Center (as defined in section 1712A of title 38, United 
States Code) in Mankato, Minnesota.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   Exhibit 10.74
                                                                   -------------


May 3, 1996

Ms. Loretta Viscount
One Royal Avenue
Linwood, New Jersey 08221

Re:  Employment by Trump Taj Mahal Associates

Dear Ms. Viscount:

     This letter will set forth the terms of your employment by Trump Taj Mahal
Associates ("TTMA"), the owner and operator of Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort
("Taj Mahal").  In the event your employment is terminated by TTMA for any
reason other than Cause, TTMA shall, upon the execution of a release agreement,
pay you an amount equal to six (6) months of your then current salary, excluding
bonuses, car allowance or the like.  For purposes of this provision, Cause shall
be defined to mean the following: a breach by you of any employee conduct rule;
the suspension, revocation or expiration of your Casino Control Commission
license or registration; an act of dishonesty; the deliberate and intentional
refusal by you to perform your duties as assigned; illegal drug use or
addiction; your permanent disability if that disability results in your
inability to perform the essential functions of your job despite reasonable
accommodation; or your death.

     You understand that this letter sets forth a specific term of your
employment only and is not an employment agreement.  TTMA and you will always
have an employment at-will relationship which means that either you or TTMA may
choose to end your employment at any time.  Additionally, your employment will
be subject to the terms and conditions of Taj Mahal's Employee Handbook.

     We look forward to having your join the Taj Mahal team.

Very truly yours,

/s/ R. Bruce McKee
------------------

R. Bruce McKee
Senior Vice President, Finance
and Chief Operating Officer
<PAGE>
 
Ms. Loretta Viscount
Page Two
May 3, 1996

I acknowledge that the foregoing supersedes and terminates all terms and
conditions of that certain letter dated February 14, 1996 from Trump's Castle
Associates ("TCA") wherein TCA agreed to pay me an amount equal to six months
salary in the event I was terminated by TCA without Cause.  I hereby release and
hold TCA harmless from any obligations pursuant to the February 14, 1996 letter.

                                    /s/ Loretta Viscount
                                    --------------------
                                    Loretta Viscount
*

The Honorable Lawrence P. Zatkoff, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting

by designation.

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 06a0275n.06

Filed: April 21, 2006

Case No. 05-3571

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

JOANNE VENTRA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

LAKE COUNTY GENERAL HEALTH,

DISTRICT, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

_______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE NORTHERN

DISTRICT OF OHIO

BEFORE: BATCHELDER and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges; ZATKOFF, District Judge.*

Plaintiff-Appellant Joanne Ventra appeals the district court’s order granting summary

judgment to the defendants, the Lake County General Health District, its Commissioner, Joel Lucia,

and one of its division supervisors, Janet Merrick, on Ventra’s claims that by failing to hire her as

a dietician, the defendants discriminated against her in violation of the Age Discrimination in

Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and Ohio law. The district court held that Ventra had failed

to establish a prima facie case under the ADEA because she had not produced any evidence that the

individual actually hired for the position was younger than she, and that, even assuming a prima

facie case, Ventra had failed to demonstrate pretext because she had not produced any evidence to
2

rebut the defendants’ legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for not offering the position to Ventra.

Further, the district court assumed for purposes of the summary judgment proceedings that Ventra

had met the requirements of a prima facie ADA claim, but held that, as was the case with the ADEA

claim, Ventra had not presented evidence to demonstrate pretext. Because discrimination claims

brought under Ohio law are reviewed under the same evidentiary standards applicable to claims

brought under the ADEA and ADA, the district court granted summary judgment on the state law

claims as well. Ventra appeals only the granting of summary judgment on the federal claims.

Having had the benefit of oral argument, and having carefully considered the record on

appeal and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that the district court’s order thoroughly and

accurately sets out both the undisputed facts and the governing law. Because the issuance of a full

opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose and would be duplicative, we AFFIRM the grant

of summary judgment on the basis of the district court’s well-reasoned opinion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
                                                              Exhibit 27
                                                              ----------


                              CONRAIL INC.
                         FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
                    ($ In Millions Except Per Share)
       
<CAPTION>

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-K.


<S>                                     <C>
<MULTIPLIER>                        1,000,000

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                    JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                      DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          12-MOS
<CASH>                                     73
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                             614
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                               158
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        1,206
<PP&E>                                  6,408
<DEPRECIATION>                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          8,424
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   1,170
<BONDS>                                 1,911
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                               282
<COMMON>                                   85
<OTHER-SE>                              2,610
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            8,424
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        3,686
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           3,230
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        194
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           392
<INCOME-TAX>                              128
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       264
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                              264
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            3.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                            2.94

        
<PAGE>



</TABLE>
1... This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 91-CR-43, styled State of Texas v. Ovidio Garcia, Jr., in the 229th

Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas, the Honorable Alex W. Gabert presiding. However, following Judge

Gabert’s recusal from the case, the Honorable J. Manuel BanÞales, presiding judge of the Fifth Administrative Judicial

Region of Texas, was assigned to the case in an order dated June 17, 2008.

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-09-00528-CR

IN RE Ovidio GARCIA, JR.

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 7, 2009

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On August 24, 2009, relator Ovidio Garcia filed a petition for writ of mandamus,

complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on his motion for DNA testing. However, on

September 29, 2009, the trial court denied relator’s motion for DNA testing. Accordingly, the

petition is DENIED AS MOOT. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 66 (Thursday, April 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 17609]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8496]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Fiscal Service
[Dept. Circ. 570, 1994 Rev., Supp. No. 17]


Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds, American Reliable 
Insurance Company

    A Certificate of Authority as an acceptable surety on Federal Bonds 
is hereby issued to the following company under Sections 9304 to 9308, 
Title 31, of the United States Code. Federal bond-approving officers 
should annotate their reference copies of the Treasury Circular 570, 
1994 Revision, on page 34144 to reflect this addition:

    American Reliable Insurance Company. Business Address: 8655 East 
Via De Ventura, Scottsdale, Arizona, 85258. Phone: (602) 483-8666. 
Underwriting Limitation b/: $1,899,000. Surety Licenses c/: AL, AK, 
AZ, AR, CA, CO, DE, DC, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, MD, 
MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, HH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, 
PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WI, WY. Incorporated in: 
Arizona.

    Certificates of authority expire on June 30 each year, unless 
revoked prior to that date. The Certificates are subject to subsequent 
annual renewal as long as the companies remain qualified (31 CF part 
223). A list of qualified companies is published annually as of July 1 
in Treasury Department Circular 570, with details as to underwriting 
limitations, areas in which licensed to transact surety business and 
other information.
    Copies of the Circular may be obtained from the Surety Bond Branch, 
Funds Management Division, Financial Management Service, Department of 
the Treasury, Hyattsville, MD 20782, telephone (202) 874-7116.

    Dated: March 29, 1995.
Charles F. Schwan,
Director, Funds Management Division, Financial Management Service.
[FR Doc. 95-8496 Filed 4-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-M
#### Joseph Fischer, Appellant, v Thomas Lunt, Respondent.

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: On October 22, 1987, plaintiff sustained personal injuries while a passenger in a vehicle owned and operated by Thomas Edwards. Plaintiff alleges that Edwards’ vehicle was forced off the road and into a bridge abutment by *1017a vehicle owned and operated by Bradley Lunt, the 20-year-old son of defendant Thomas Lunt. The vehicle was registered in Bradley Lunt’s name, he was the named insured under an automobile insurance policy, he held a valid New York State operator’s license and only he possessed the keys to the vehicle. Plaintiff asserts a cause of action against Thomas Lunt for negligent entrustment of a dangerous instrument to his son *(see, Nolechek v Gesuale,*46 NY2d 332, 336). Supreme Court granted Thomas Lunt’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims asserted against him. We affirm. Bradley Lunt, on the date of the accident, was no longer an infant; he had attained his majority *(see,*CPLR 105 [j]). Thomas Lunt cannot be liable to third parties under a theory of negligent entrustment of a dangerous instrumentality in the hands of his adult son *(see, Nolechek v Gesuale, supra,*at 338). Moreover, the record establishes that Bradley Lunt’s use of the vehicle was not subject to his parent’s control *(see, Camillone v Popham,*157 AD2d 816; *Borregine v Klang,*144 AD2d 415; *Larsen v Heitmann,*133 AD2d 533, *Iv denied*70 NY2d 616). (Appeal from order and judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Fudeman, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Pine, Davis and Lowery, JJ.
#### Mark C. SUTTON, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Deborah S. SUTTON, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 62735.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

June 29, 1993.

Deborah J. Tomich, Knight, Schoeneberg & Tomich, St. Charles, for petitioner, appellant.

J. Patrick Winning, Janis B. Powell, Patrick Winning & Associates, St. Louis, MO, for respondent, respondent.

Before AHRENS, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Father appeals from that portion of the dissolution decree awarding general care, custody, and control of the couple’s minor daughter to mother. We affirm. The judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence; no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 31.3

CERTIFICATION

I, Robert
P. Akins, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012 of Cymer, 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. | [intentionally omitted]
| | -- | -----------------------



| | 4. | [intentionally omitted]
| | -- | -----------------------



| | 5. | [intentionally omitted]
| | -- | -----------------------

Date: March 29,
2013



/S/    ROBERT P. AKINSRobert P. AkinsChairman, Chief Executive Officer