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

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5600

Tianhai Electric North America:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20. 

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

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

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
#### Clarence COCHRAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 51391.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Submitted Jan. 23, 1996.

Decided March 12, 1996.

James C. Cox, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before HANNA, P.J., and SMART and ELLIS, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Clarence Cochran, appellant, pleaded guilty to the class D felony of passing a bad check, in violation of § 570.120, RSMo 1986 and the class C felony of forgery, in violation of § 570.090.1(4). Cochran was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years on each count, to be served consecutively. The execution of the sentence was suspended, and Cochran was placed on probation for five years. Subsequently, the probation was revoked and the sentences executed. Cochran filed a Rule 24.035 motion, which was denied without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Cochran claims that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to establish that his counsel was ineffective in that counsel led Cochran to believe that he would be required to serve no more than one year and eight months imprisonment.

Judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Cite as 2023 Ark. 9

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

Opinion Delivered: February 9, 2023

IN RE AMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE 

PLANS FOR CIRCUIT COURTS

PER CURIAM

Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 14, amendments to currently approved

administrative plans have been submitted by the Fourth Circuit and the Sixth Circuit. These

amendments are approved and shall be effective immediately. 

Administrative plans currently in effect for all other circuit courts remain in full force 

and effect until a subsequent plan is approved.
Exhibit 10.7


 


INO Therapeutics


 


Long Term Incentive Plan
Grant Certificate


 


 


	
  Employee
  Name:

  	
   

  	
  Elizabeth
  Larkin

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Effective
  Date of Grant:

  	
   

  	
  January 1,
  2006

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Grant
  Amount:

  	
   

  	
  19,600
  units

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Baseline
  Value:

  	
   

  	
  $5.64

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Vesting Date:

  	
   

  	
  January 1, 2011

  



 


We are very pleased to
present you with this Long-term Incentive Plan Grant.  As a recipient of this grant, you share in
the growth and performance of our Company. 
The potential value of your Long-term Incentive Plan units depends on
the success of our organization.


 


We congratulate you on your
performance to date.  As we progress as a
Company, we’re counting on every employee to make a difference for our future.


 


Shown below is a statement
of your Long Term Incentive Plan account balance:


 


	
  Grant
  Date

  	
   

  	
  Grant Amount

  	
   

  	
  Baseline Value

  	
   

  	
  Vesting Date

  	
   

  
	
  Jan
  1, 2002

  	
   

  	
  17,400 units

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2.84

  	
   

  	
  Jan
  1, 2007

  	
   

  
	
  Jan
  1, 2003

  	
   

  	
  25,400 units

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2.80

  	
   

  	
  Jan
  1, 2008

  	
   

  
	
  Jan
  1, 2004

  	
   

  	
  19,800 units

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4.32

  	
   

  	
  Jan
  1, 2009

  	
   

  
	
  Jan
  1, 2005

  	
   

  	
  19,000 units

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5.12

  	
   

  	
  Jan
  1, 2010

  	
   

  
	
  Jan
  1, 2006

  	
   

  	
  19,600 units

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5.64

  	
   

  	
  Jan
  1, 2011

  	
   

  



 


When your units vest, you
will receive a cash payout equal to the appreciation of the units.  This year you will receive an LTIP payout of
$24,426.00 (less taxes) with respect to 6,900 units granted on January 1,
2001.


 


This grant is
non-transferable and has no cash value. 
The Company makes no guarantee on the future performance of the Company,
or on the appreciation of Long-term Incentive Plan units.  This certificate does not represent a
contract of employment or assurance of future programs or grants.  All aspects of this plan are governed by the
INO Long-Term Inventive Plan document.
<Page>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 31.01

                     RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS

I, Robert M. Alderman, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of ML Winton FuturesAccess LLC;

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:

    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; and

    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;

    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 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 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 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: May 16, 2005

By /s/ ROBERT M. ALDERMAN
   ----------------------
Robert M. Alderman
Chief Executive Officer, President and Manager
(Principal Executive Officer)
#### Arnie Lee STOCKING, Respondent, v. SIPCO, INC., Appellant.

No. WD 49668.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

March 7, 1995.

*413Robert E. Douglass, Frederick Tower, St. Joseph, for appellant.

Robert Edward Murphy, Kenneth E. Siemens, St. Joseph, for respondent.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Sipco, Inc., appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission ordering it to pay for Arnie Stocking’s future medical treatment for an injury he sustained while working for Sipco. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).
First Amendment to 2006 Stock Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.2 

AMENDMENT 

TO 

CARROLS RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. 

2006 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 

AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”) to the Carrols Restaurant Group, Inc. 2006 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”).
Capitalized terms used herein but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed thereto in the Plan. 
 WHEREAS,
the Board of Directors of Carrols Restaurant Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), previously adopted the Plan, which was approved by the stockholders of the Company; 

WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Plan, in March 2010, the Board of Directors of the
Company adopted amendments to the Plan to modify Outside Director Awards to provide that, on the date of each annual meeting of Stockholders of the Company beginning with the 2010 annual meeting of Stockholders and on each annual Stockholders
meeting thereafter, each Outside Director would no longer be granted an Outside Director Stock Option to purchase 3,500 shares of Stock, and in lieu thereof, each such Outside Director would be granted as of the date of each such annual meeting of
Stockholders beginning with the 2010 annual meeting of Stockholders, a Stock Award comprised of that number of shares of Stock having an aggregate Fair Market Value of $25,000 on the date of grant; and 

WHEREAS, all terms and conditions of the Plan, other than as specifically amended as set forth in this Amendment, shall remain in
full force and effect. 
 NOW THEREFORE, the Plan has been amended as follows: 

 

	 	1.	The first paragraph of Section 8 of the Plan was amended by adding the following sentence at the end of such paragraph: 


“Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, no further grants of such Outside Director Stock Options shall be made to
Outside Directors after the date of the 2009 annual meeting of Stockholders.” 
  

	 	2.	The first paragraph of Section 9 of the Plan was amended by adding the following new subsection (c) thereof immediately following subsection (b) thereof:


 “(c) On the date of the 2010 annual meeting of Stockholders of the Company, and on the date
of each annual meeting of Stockholders of the Company during each Company fiscal year thereafter, each Outside Director of the Company shall be granted a Stock Award comprised of that number of shares of Stock having an aggregate Fair Market Value
of $25,000 on the date of grant.” 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Secretary of the Company has executed this Amendment and
certifies that the amendment to the Plan set forth above accurately reflects the amendment to the Plan adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company. 

 

	
	 /s/ Joseph A. Zirkman

	Joseph A. Zirkman, Secretary
	
	Dated: March 24, 2010
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-2018-0025-6596

SGRE, Inc:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20.

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

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

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION



| | I, Rick Wilson, certify that:
| | -----------------------------



1.
           
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Blacksands Petroleum, Inc.



2.           Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of 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 quarterly 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 registrants 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:  June 16, 2008 | By:
/s/ Rick Wilson        
|-------------------- | ---------------------------
|                     | Rick Wilson                
|                     | Principal Financial Officer
|                     |                            





---
# U n i t e d S t a t e s C o u r t o f A p pe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 23-5300 September Term, 2024 1: 23-c v -024 34-UNA Filed O n: Octob er 8, 20 24 Rozi na Kima ni Muth oka,

App ellant
v . Lea gue of

Nation s, etal., App ellees
ON A PPE A L FROM THE UNITED ST A TES DIS TRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE: Hend erson , W alker, an d Childs, Circuit Jud ges J U D G M E N T T his ap pea l w as co nside red o n th e reco rd f rom the United S tates District Court for th e District of

Colum bia a nd on the brief f iled b y ap pellan t. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P

. 34(a )(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upo n co nside ration of the foregoing, th e su pple me nt t o the brief , th e m otion to app oint coun sel, a nd the m otion for an injun ction, it is ORDERED tha t th e m otion to app oint coun sel be de nied . In civ il cases, app ellants are noten titled to a ppo intm entof cou nsel when the y

ha v e n ot d em onst rated sufficien t likelihoo d o f

succe ss on the m erit s. Itis FURTHER ORDERED tha t th e m otion for an injun ction be den ied. Ap pellan t ha s notde mo nstrat ed any legal ent itlem entto the relief requeste d. It is FURTHER ORDERED A ND A DJUDGED tha t th e d istrict court’s Oct obe r 20, 202 3 o rder be aff irmed . T he district cou rt prop erly dism issed a ppe llant’s co mp laint f or failure t o co mp ly

w ith Fe dera l Rule o f

Civ il Proced ure 8 (a). Ap pellan t’s com plaintdid notset forth “a sho rt an d p lain statem entof the claim sho w ing thatthe plea der is ent itled t o relief ,” w hich is re quired in o rder to “gi v e th e d ef end antfair no tice o f w hatthe

. . . claim is an d th e groun ds u pon w hich it rests.” Bell Atlan tic Corp. v . T w om bly, 550 U.S. 5 44, 55 5 (20 07) (alte ration in o rig inal). A dditio nally, ap pellan t ha s forfeited an y argume nt t hatthe district co urt e rred in co nclud ing thatshe m ay not b ring claims on beh alf of a t rust o r a class, or wi th re spectto the de nial o f leave to f ile in forma

# U n i t e d S t a t e s C o u r t o f A p pe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 23-5300 September Term, 2024
paupe ris. See United S tates ex rel. T otte n v . Bo mb ardier Corp ., 3 80 F .3d 48 8, 4 97 (D.C. Cir. 20 04) (“Ordina rily, argum ents tha t parties d o n ot m ake on app eal a re de em ed to h ave bee n waiv ed. ”). Pursua nt t o D.C. Circuit Ru le 36 , th is dispo sition will no t be pu blished . T he Clerk is directe d to w ithho ld issua nce of the m and ate he rein u ntil seven d ays after reso lution of an y tim ely petition for rehe aring or pe tition for rehe aring en ban c. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P. 41 (b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41. Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT: Mark J. La nger, Clerk BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Depu ty Cl erk

Page 2
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 17, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-7360

Hartland Controls, 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/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September.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

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-7784

Carrier Corporation:

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
Exhibit 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



|                              |  |                                             |  |                    
|----------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------
|Parent                       
|                              |  |                                            
|Dimeco, Inc.                  |  |                                             |  |                    
|                              |  |                                            
|Subsidiaries of Dimeco, Inc.  |  | State or OtherJurisdiction of Incorporation |  | PercentageOwnership
|                              |  |                                            
|The Dime Bank                 |  | Pennsylvania                                |  | 100%               
|                              |  |                                            
|Subsidiaries of The Dime Bank |  | State or OtherJurisdiction of Incorporation |  | PercentageOwnership
|                              |  |                                            
|TDB Insurance Services, LLC   |  | Pennsylvania                                |  | 100%