alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2010 Short-Term Incentive Plan of Alon Goren



 Exhibit 10.2 

Short-Term Incentive Plan of Alon Goren 

2010 STI Goals 
  

			
	Name: Alon Goren	  	Job Title: CTO & Chairman
		
	Effective Dates of Plan: 1/1/10 – 12/31/10	  	Business Unit: Central Product Development
		
	STI Potential: 70% of Base Salary	  	Manager: John Heyman

 Goals: 

 

											
	 Goal Description
	  	 Weight
	 	 Payout
Timing
	    	 Budget

(show qtrly if applicable)
	    	 Target

(show qtrly if applicable)
	  	Comments
	 Company Operating Income –

67% paid at Budget
	  	67%	 	Annual	    	 Q1 = N/A
 Q2 = N/A

Q3 = N/A
 Q4 = N/A

Annual = [xxxxxx]*
	    	 Q1 = N/A
 Q2 = N/A

Q3 = N/A
 Q4 = N/A

Annual = [xxxxxx]*
	  	
						
	 Operational objectives as

determined by the CEO. This
 portion of bonus is
only paid out if the Operating Income budget is achieved.
	  	33%	 	Annual	    		    		  	

  
 *
Filed under an application for confidential treatment.
**EXHIBIT 32.02**

**Section 1350 Certification**

In connection with thisquarterly report of ML Winton FuturesAccess LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (this “Report”), I, Barbra E. Kocsis, ChiefFinancial Officer ofMerrill Lynch Alternative Investments LLC, the manager of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. This Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

2. The informationcontained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date:   May 15, 2007                    |                 |   |
|----------------------------------------------|----------------------|--------|
|                                         |                 |
| By                                           | /s/ BARBRA E. KOCSIS |   |
| Barbra E. Kocsis                             |
| Chief Financial Officer                      |
| (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |
|                                              |                      |        |  |

 

----
#### Billy NATIONS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 561-95.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

Sept. 25, 1996.

David Botsford, Terrence W. Kirk, Austin, for appellant.

Carl Bryan Case, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Matthew Paul, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW*

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted appellant of aggravated sexual assault and assessed his punishment at confinement for 30 years. The conviction was affirmed. *Nations v. State,*894 S.W.2d 480 (Tex.App.—Austin, 1995).

On direct appeal, appellant maintained the trial court erred by excluding the testimony of an expert witness. Appellant’s proffered expert testimony concerned the reliability of eyewitness identification. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision to exclude the testimony and stated:

> Appellant urges that in the instant cause, unlike *Rousseau [v. State,*855 S.W.2d 666 (Tex.Crim.App.1993)] and *Pierce*[v. *State,*777 S.W.2d 399 (Tex.Crim.App.1989)l appellant’s questions embodied hypothetical facts that fit this cause. While this was one of the factors mentioned in *Pierce*and *Rousseau,*we hold that the trial court did *99not abuse its discretion in excluding the proffered expert testimony in the instant cause. The jury was amply qualified to make a determination of the reliability of the victim’s identification of appellant in light of extensive cross-examination of the victim and the jury’s inherent knowledge of memory and its effect on perception. *Id.*at 485.

Appellant challenges the Court of Appeals’ disposition of his point of error concerning admissibility of expert testimony on the issue of eyewitness identification. At the time of its opinion, the Court of Appeals did not have the benefit of our decision in *Jordan v. State,*928 S.W.2d 550 (Tex.Cr.App.1996). There, we wrote extensively on the Tex.R.Crim. Evid. 702 “fit” requirement and whether expert testimony similar to that offered in the instant cause is excludable on the basis the subject matter is within the common knowledge of jurors.

We find the Court of Appeals should be afforded an opportunity to reconsider appellant’s complaint in light of our opinion in *Jordan,*supra. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the cause is remanded to that court to address appellant’s first point of error in accord with *Jordan,*supra.

McCORMICK, P.J., and KELLER, J., dissent.

WHITE, J., not participating.
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-2018-0025-6708

Pall 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 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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6668

Lubrication Specialties, 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,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
$[ ] [ ]

INPUT

.05

80
Consistent with USTR's Section 301 notice, OMRON Management Center of America, Inc. requests

confidential treatment for the information designated as business confidential in this submission. Such

information consists of information that would not customarily be released to the public, including

business or trade secrets regarding production costs and processes, data on sales, product characteristics

customers, destinations, and other product, sales, and cost-related business secrets. Business confidential

information has been indicated herein by enclosing it in single brackets (“[ ]”). A public version of these

comments is also being filed with all confidential information removed.

OMRON Management Center of America, Inc. submits this exclusion request on behalf of our business

unit. OMRON in the US is the only designer of this product and only supplier of this component.

BODY ASSY,HAZARD SW-HAZARD WARNING SWITCH is a switch connector and is used only

automotive purposes of attaching the hazard switch, which is an OEM-specified dimension. It is only

used for further assembly of components which go into domestic automobile production, which is

specified by auto manufacturer.

This product is not a target of the US Administration's 301 investigation regarding Intellectual Property

concerns. This is not a concern to IP transfer and impressment. This product contains no IP of interest

related to autonomous vehicle production.

The tariff action ultimately poses a risk of significant damage to OMRON, the domestic automobile

industry, and ultimately the US consumer as a increase in price. Like in the case of similar approvals for

vehicle components at the HTS level, OMRON views this product in the same manner. Immediate

movement of production to a US manufacturer or another country would pose significant re-tooling

costs, significant amounts of time, and approvals pertaining to consumer automobile safety standards are

costly and would take a significant amount of time to obtain.

OMRON Management Center of America, Inc. believes that CBP can easily exclude the BODY

ASSY,HAZARD SW-HAZARD WARNING SWITCH in question based solely on the product

description. The following are draft CBP exclusion instructions:

"BODY ASSY,HAZARD SW-HAZARD WARNING SWITCH; rectangular raised switch connector

with metal contact pins extending from one end; plastic body with trace for contacting switch for

HAZARD SWITCH; consist of plastic and terminal; resin and brass; dimensions 16.60mm X 14.41mm

X 26.90mm."

This information will be contained on the invoice from the supplier.
#### Charles ROWELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 51659.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

May 21, 1996.

Judith C. LaRose, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

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

Before FENNER, C.J., P.J., and HANNA and ELLIS, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from the dismissal, without eviden-tiary hearing, of Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion as being untimely filed.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### Jones *et al. v.*Jackson.

Beck, P. J.

The motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions in this case-must prevail, as it is not made to appear that there was service of the same upon the opposite party or his attorney in accordance with the provisions of the statute providing for the service of bills of exceptions. The provision of the statute referred to is contained in § 6160 (1) of the Civil Code of 1910, which-reads as follows: “Within ten days after the bill of exceptions is signed and certified, the party plaintiff therein shall serve a copy thereof upon the opposite party or his attorney, and if there be several parties with different attorneys, upon each, with a return of such service (or acknowledgment of service) indorsed upon or annexed to such bill of exceptions.” In the instant case there is no “ return of such service (or acknowledgment of service) indorsed upon or annexed to such bill of exceptions.” There is attached to the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error a certificate made by the clerk of the superior court, that the plaintiff in error handed the bill of exceptions to him with request that it be served on the attorney for the opposite party; that the clerk did present the bill of exceptions to the attorney and requested him *670to acknowledge service, which he refused to do; and that he then handed the paper to the sheriff of the county, that he might make service. The plaintiff in error states, without making affidavit, that he presented the bill of exceptions to the defendant’s attorney, and that he refused to acknowledge service or accept copy of the same. This certificate of the clerk of the superior court and statement of the plaintiff in error do not cure the failure to make proper return of service according to the terms of the statute. *Brantley v. McArthur,*132 *Ga.*459 (64 S. E. 326); *Smith v. Hirsch,*119 *Ga.*514 (46 S. E. 637). The writ of error is accordingly dismissed.

No. 3189.

December 15, 1922.

Writ of error; from Morgan. Motion to dismiss.

*Aaron Jones*and *J. E.*Sistrunk, for plaintiffs.

*E. W. Butter,*for defendant.

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
American Bio Medica Corporation (the "Company") on Form S-3 (File No. 333-70220,
Form S-3 (File No. 333-16535), Form S-8 (File No. 333-83684), Form S-8 (File No.
333-91025) and Form S-8 (File No. 333-19203) of our report dated June 20, 2001
(with respect to Note B, July 23, 2001) on our audits of the financial
statements of the Company as of April 30, 2001 and for each of the years in the
two year period then ended which report is included in this Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB/A-1. In addition, we consent to the reference to us under the
heading "Experts" in the registration statements in the above Forms S-3.


Our report contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company has
experience recurring net losses and negative cash flows from operations that
raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. The
financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the
outcome of this uncertainty.


 /s/ Eisner LLP



(formerly Richard A. Eisner & Company, LLP)
 New York, New York
 June 3, 2002
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-2018-0025-7813

Nissan North America, Inc:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20.

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

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

request was denied because the request 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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
**EXHIBIT 31.02**

 

**Rule13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certifications**

 

I, Michael L. Pungello,certify that:

** **

1. I have reviewed thisreport on Form 10-Q of ML Cornerstone FuturesAccess LLC;

 

2. Based on my knowledge,this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a) Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)  Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation,of internal control over financial reporting to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

 

a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b) Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date:  May 15, 2006                                    |
|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                   |
| By                                                     | /s/ MICHAEL L. PUNGELLO |   |
| Michael L. Pungello                                    |
| Vice President, Chief  Financial Officer and Treasurer |
| (Principal Financial  and Accounting Officer)          |

 

----
H. R. 5464 

One Hundred Eighteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four 

An Act 

To name the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic 

in Guntersville, Alabama, as the ‘‘Colonel Ola Lee Mize Department of Veterans 

Affairs Clinic’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. NAME OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS COMMUNITY-BASED OUTPATIENT CLINIC, GUNTERSVILLE, ALABAMA. 

The Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic located at 100 Judy Smith Drive, Guntersville, Alabama, shall after the date of the enactment of this Act be known 

and designated as the ‘‘Colonel Ola Lee Mize Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic’’. Any reference to such clinic in any law, 

regulation, map, document, paper, or other record of the United 

States shall be considered to be a reference to the Colonel Ola 

Lee Mize Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
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-2018-0025-6550

Apergy ESP Systems, LLC:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20.

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

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

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6339

CW Bearing USA, Inc:

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
Exhibit 32.2
 
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Howard M. Sipzner

Howard M. SipznerExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDate: August 8, 2008
 
 *
    
    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Brandywine Realty Trust and will be retained by Brandywine Realty Trust and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.