alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Shawn YOUNT, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 66678.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

May 2, 1995.

John M. Sehilmoeller, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Michelle A. Freund, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his convictions for kidnapping, § 565.110, RSMo 1994, and second degree robbery, § 569.030, RSMo 1994. He was sentenced by the court as a prior and persistent offender to consecutive terms of fifteen years’ imprisonment. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.88

November 4, 1997



Mr. Fred E. Liao
Overland Company
147 East Olive Avenue
Monrovia,  CA  91016

Dear Fred:

You had previously received warrants to purchase stock of Inco Homes Corporation
as follows:

     The warrant (200,000 shares) may be exercised within eighteen months (June
     25, 1998) of the date of the Agreement (December 26, 1996) at a price of
     $5.25 per share.  If at least half of the warrant shares (100,000 shares)
     are not exercised during this period, then half of the warrant shares will
     expire, with the balance (100,000 shares) exercisable over an additional
     eighteen month period (December 25, 1999) at $9.75 per share.

Recently, the price of Inco stock has been just below $2.00 to just above $3.00
per share.  Inasmuch as Inco would like to have you exercise your warrants and
consequently receive cash, we hereby offer you the opportunity to exercise your
warrants within the next fifteen to thirty days at a price of $2.00 per share,
which, subject to approval by Inco's Board of Directors, would amend our
previous Agreement dated December 26, 1996.

Should you desire to accept this offer, please sign where indicated below on
this letter and return it with your check in the amount of $200,000.

Following receipt of your check, the shares will be issued forthwith.  Thank you
very much for your continuing interest in the success of Inco Homes and our
mutual business relationships.

Very truly yours,


/s/ Ira C. Norris

Ira C. Norris
Chairman/CEO

ICN/la

AGREED & ACCEPTED


/s/ Fred E. Liao
------------------------
Fred E. Liao

Date:   11-5-97
     -------------------
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 68 (Monday, April 10, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18005-18006]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8652]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

32 CFR Part 290


Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) Freedom of Information Act 
Program

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Defense, DoD.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This administrative amendment is published to inform potential 
FOIA requestors of the geographical coverage of Wyoming from the 
Western region to the Central region as part of its reorganization. 
This part also authorizes the ``DCAA Label 4'' (For official use only 
coversheet).

EFFECTIVE DATE: (April 10, 1950).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Dave Henshall, Attn: CMR, Defense Contract Audit Agency, Cameron 
Station, Alexandria, VA 22304-6168, telephone 703-274-4400.

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 290

    Freedom of information.

    Accordingly, 32 CFR Part 290 is amended as follows: [[Page 18006]] 

PART 290--DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY (DCAA) FREEDOM OF 
INFORMATION ACT PROGRAM

    1. The authority citation of part 290 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552.

    2. Appendix B to part 290 is amended as follows:
    a. Regional office CALIFORNIA is amended after ``Oregon'' by adding 
the word ``and'', and after ``Washington'' by removing the words, ``and 
Wyoming.''
    b. Regional office TEXAS is amended after ``Wisconsin'' by adding 
the state ``Wyoming''.
    3. Appendix C to part 290 is amended by adding new paragraph (c)(3) 
to read as follows:

Appendix C to Part 290--For Official Use Only

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) DCAA Label 4, FOUO Cover Sheet. This form may be used to 
further identify FOUO information.
* * * * *
    Dated: April 3, 1995.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 95-8652 Filed 4-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
ex10_581.htm










Exhibit 10.58.1







Letter of Agreement


By and between


Chugach Electric Association, Inc. (Chugach)


and


UNITE HERE Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 878


Representing


Beluga Power Plant Culinary Plant Employees







Re: Contract Extension


 


Incorporation by Reference


The parties agree that the terms and conditions of the current Beluga Power Plant Culinary Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) between the parties which is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2010 including all attached Letters of Agreement, Letters of Understanding and/or Grievance Resolutions, shall continue in full force and effect until June 30, 2013, except where modified, added to or deleted by this Contract Extension Agreement.







Article XVI Health and Welfare







The employer agrees to pay the following Health and Welfare contribution amounts effective July 1 of each of the following years:







2010-$3.78


2011-$4.20


2012-$4.69







No other terms of the current (expiration June 30, 2010) Collective Bargaining Agreement shall be modified by this Letter of Agreement.  Upon ratification by the bargaining unit and approval of the Chugach Board of Directors, this Extension Agreement will become effective July 1, 2010.








	
/s/ Marvin Jones

	  	
/s/ Bradley W. Evans


	
UNITE HERE Local 878:


Marvin Jones,


President

	  	
For Chugach:


Bradley W. Evans,


Chief Executive Officer


	  	  	  
	
March 23, 2010

	  	
March 23, 2010


	
Date

	  	
Date












HERE Bargaining Unit


 Contract Extension 2010 to 2013


February 23, 201009
**EXHIBIT 32.02**

**Section 1350 Certification**

In connection with thisannual report of ML Aspect FuturesAccess LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-K forthe year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (this “Report”), I, Barbra E. Kocsis, ChiefFinancial Officer of Merrill Lynch Alternative Investments LLC, the manager ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantof the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.This Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

Date: August 14,2007
| By                                           | /s/ BARBRA E. KOCSIS |   |
|----------------------------------------------|----------------------|--------|
| Barbra E. Kocsis                             |
| Chief Financial Officer                      |
| (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

----
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 9 , 2012.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 12

- 00489

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A .A., MINOR CHILD

On Appeal from the 315th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2011

- 04041J



### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant, D.T. , appeals a final decree signed May 1, 2012 , terminating her parental rights to A.A., a child who is the subject of this suit terminating D.T.’s parental rights . Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she conc ludes the appeal is wholly frivo lous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L . Ed. 2d 493 (1967), presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to2

be advanced

. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The
Anders procedures are applicable to an appeal from the termination of parental rights when an appointed attorney concludes there are no non

- frivolous issues to assert on appeal. In re D.E.S. , 135 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.). Appellant ’s counsel also filed a motion to withdraw her representation of appellant. A copy of counsel’s brief and a copy of the record were delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of her right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se
response. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); In re
D.E.S. , 135 S.W.3d at 329

– 30. More than thirty days have elapsed, and , as of this date,

no pro se response or motion requesting additional time has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and co unsel’s appellate brief carefully . We agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in
the record. A discussion of the appellate brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of
the state.
Having determined that the appeal is frivolous and that the requirements of Anders have been satisfied, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Per curiam

Panel consists of Justices Frost, McCally , and Busby

.
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of Universal Fog Inc. for the Quarter Ended September 30, 2005, I, Tom Bontems, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Universal Fog Inc. hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that: 

 
| 1.     | Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Universal Fog Inc. |

 
| By:    | */s/*   *Tom Bontems*

Tom BontemsChief Executive OfficerChief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer |
|-----------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                  |                                                                                                                                       |

 
| Dated: | June 22, 2006 |
|--------|---------------|
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Repros Therapeutics Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Katherine A. Anderson, Chief Accounting Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted 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.





Dated: March 28, 2011
By:
/s/ Katherine A. AndersonKatherine A. AndersonChief Accounting Officer andPrincipal Financial OfficerRepros Therapeutics Inc.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Repros Therapeutics Inc. and will be retained by Repros Therapeutics Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





Exhibit 32.2
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6277

BorgWarner, 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
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-2018-0025-6450

Advanced Optowave Corp:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20. 

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

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

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 128170(66) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 128170 COA: 248540 Jackson CC: 02-006612-FC SHAWN LYNN SALYERS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's order of February 27, 2006 is considere d, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

d0522 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 30, 2006

Clerk
Exhibit 31.1

SARBANES-OXLEY  SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I,
Dan W. Matthias, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Mothers Work, 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 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:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer 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:



Date:
December 23, 2003

|/s/DAN W. MATTHIASDan W. Matthias Chief Executive Officer |  |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------- |  |  | 

---

QuickLinks
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 26, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-6677

Invacare Corp:

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

April 12, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6455

Apex Sourcing & Manufacturing: 

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

_04.15.19.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,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

JOSHUA LINEHAN, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-3589

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

________________________________ )

Opinion filed September 28, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota

County; Debra Johnes Riva, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender,

and Megan Olson, Assistant Public

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,

Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, VILLANTI, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
#### Gregory KENNEDY, Appellant, v. OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION, DIVISION OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION, et. al., Respondent.

No. WD 51185.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

March 12, 1996.

David J. Moen, Carson & Coil, P.C., Jefferson City, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Sara L. Trower, Nancy M. Leonard, Asst. Attorneys General, Jefferson City, for Respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of his petition alleging retaliatory discharge under the Workers’ Compensation Law against the state and several state employees. The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, finding that the state’s sovereign immunity prohibits suits for retaliatory discharge under the Workers’ Compensation Law and that the individual state employees were not “employers” under § 287.030. Rule 84.16(b).