alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS OF THE GEON COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF DECEMBER
31, 1998 AND DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
FOR THE YEARS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
<CURRENCY> USD
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                              14
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       74
<ALLOWANCES>                                         4
<INVENTORY>                                        114
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   235
<PP&E>                                           1,205
<DEPRECIATION>                                     762
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     802
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              257
<BONDS>                                            135
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                         211
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       802
<SALES>                                          1,284
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,284
<CGS>                                            1,093
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,247
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (1)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  15
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     24
<INCOME-TAX>                                        10
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 14
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        14
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .58
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 104 (Wednesday, June 2, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 29580]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11717]


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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK


Sunshine Act Meetings; Notice of Open Meeting of the Advisory 
Committee of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM)

TIME AND DATE: Thursday, June 17th, 2021 from 2:00-4:30 p.m. EDT.

PLACE: The meeting will be held virtually.

STATUS: Public Participation: The meeting will be open to public 
participation and time will be allotted for questions or comments 
submitted online. Members of the public may also file written 
statements before or after the meeting to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1f7a676b7a6d717e735f7a67767231787069"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d2b7aaa6b7a0bcb3be92b7aabbbffcb5bda4">[email protected]</span></a>. Interested 
parties may register for the meeting at https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/42af9759b5594205b9d9dc3ae754afae.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Discussion of EXIM policies and programs to 
provide competitive financing to expand United States exports and 
comments for inclusion in EXIM's Report to the U.S. Congress on Global 
Export Credit Competition.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information, contact 
India Walker, External Enagagement Specialist, at 202-480-0062.

Joyce B. Stone,
Assistant Corporate Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-11717 Filed 5-28-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 10.35




AMENDMENT NO. 1


TO


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT





THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 (“Amendment No. 1”) to the EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) by and between Frank J. Luppino (the “Executive”) and Anika Therapeutics, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation (the “Corporation”), dated as of September 10, 2009, is made this 8th day of December, 2010.





RECITALS





WHEREAS the Corporation and the Executive are parties to the Agreement;





AND WHEREAS, the Corporation and the Executive desire to amend the Agreement as set forth herein.





NOW, THEREFORE,in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:




1.            Section 6(a)(i)(A) of the Agreement is hereby amended by adding the following at the end thereof:





“(C) Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Date of Termination occurs prior to a Change in Control, payment shall be made in substantially equal installments in accordance with the Company’s payroll practice over 18 months, but amounts shall be increased after the Change in Control to reflect the higher level of severance provided by this Section 6.”




2.            Except as set forth above, all terms of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Amendment No. 1.





ANIKA THERAPEUTICS, INC.BY:
/s/ Charles H. Sherwood/s/ Frank J. LuppinoFrank J. Luppino
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 102 (Friday, May 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 28825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11337]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 3309-021]


Marlow Hydro, LLC; Notice of Effectiveness of Withdrawal of 
License Application

    On December 1, 2020, Marlow Hydro, LLC (Marlow Hydro) filed an 
application for a subsequent license for the 225-kilowatt Nash Mill Dam 
Hydroelectric Project No. 3309. On May 5, 2020, Marlow Hydro filed a 
notice of withdrawal of its application.
    No motion in opposition to the notice of withdrawal has been filed, 
and the Commission has taken no action to disallow the withdrawal. 
Pursuant to Rule 216(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure,\1\ the withdrawal of the application became effective on May 
21, 2021, and this proceeding is hereby terminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.216(b) (2020).

    Dated: May 21, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-11337 Filed 5-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
EXHIBIT 25


                               POWER OF ATTORNEY

<PAGE>

                               POWER OF ATTORNEY

Each person whose signature appears below hereby authorizes Terry L. Robinson or
David B. Gaw and  either  of them,  as  attorney-in-fact,  to sign in his or her
behalf,  individually and in each capacity stated below, and to file this Annual
Report on Form 10- K and all amendments and/or supplements to this Annual Report
on Form 10- K

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Signature                            Title                                   Date
---------                            -----                                   ----
<S>                                  <C>                                 <C>
                                     Director
-------------------------
Lauren A. Ackerman


                                     Director
-------------------------
John B. Anthony, III


/s/Thomas N. Gavin                   Director                            March 15, 2006
-------------------------
Thomas N. Gavin


/s/David B. Gaw                      Director and                        March 15, 2006
-------------------------            Chairman of the Board
David B. Gaw


/s/Fred J. Hearn Jr.                 Director                            March 15, 2006
-------------------------
Fred J. Hearn Jr.


/s/Conrad W. Hewitt                  Director                            March 15, 2006
-------------------------
Conrad W. Hewitt


                                     Director
-------------------------
Connie L. Klimisch


/s/Richard S. Long                   Director and                        March 15, 2006
-------------------------            Vice Chairman of the Board
Richard S. Long


                                     Director
-------------------------
Thomas H. Lowenstein


/s/Thomas F. Malloy                  Director                            March 15, 2006
-------------------------
Thomas F. Malloy


                                     Director
-------------------------
Andrew J. Nicks M.D.
</TABLE>

<PAGE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<C>                                  <C>                                 <C>
/s/Terry L. Robinson                 President, Chief                    March 15, 2006
-------------------------            Executive Officer and Director
Terry L. Robinson                    (Principal Executive Officer)


/s/Thomas H. Shelton                 Director                            March 15, 2006
-------------------------
Thomas H. Shelton .


/s/Stephen C. Spencer                Director                            March 15, 2006
-------------------------
Stephen C. Spencer


/s/Denise C. Suihkonen               Director                            March 15, 2006
-------------------------
Denise C. Suihkonen


/s/James E. Tidgewell                Director                            March 15, 2006
-------------------------
James E. Tidgewell


/s/Patrick E. Phelan                 Executive Vice President            March 15, 2006
-------------------------            Chief Financial Officer
Patrick E. Phelan                    (Principal Financial Officer)

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jovonnie PEEPLES, Appellant. Jovonnie PEEPLES, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 66396, 67855.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Oct. 3, 1995.

Rosalynn Koch, Columbia, Office of the State Public Defender, for appellant.

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

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and WHITE, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Jovonnie Peeples appeals conviction of Assault First Degree, § 565.050 RSMo 1986, and denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. No legal error occurred, the state proved all elements of the crime. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential value. Judgments affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b) and Rule 84.16(b).
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-2018-0025-7110

United Scope LLC: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_05.09.19.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 26, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-6697

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
#### D & D CAR WASH, INC., Respondent, v. Travis D.L. NEWSOME, et al., Appellant.

No. WD 49938.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 4, 1995.

Carl W. Bussey, Bussey & Associates, Kansas City, for appellant.

Richard Helfand, Shari Miller Blank, Panethiere & Helfand, Kansas City, for respondent.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Travis Newsome, Mary Alice Newsome and Double D’s Car Wash, Inc., appeal summary judgment for breach of contract in behalf of D & D Car Wash, Inc., awarding damages.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6247

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. MICHAEL SHIRLEY, a/k/a Winston Freeman, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (1:99-cr-00069-NCT-1; 1:05-cv-00238-NCT-RAE) Submitted: June 26, 2008 Decided: July 1, 2008 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Shirley, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Michael Shirley seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his application for a certificate of appealability to appeal from the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Shirley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors and
Shareholders

PremierWest Bancorp and Subsidiary

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements of PremierWest Bancorp of our report dated March 16, 2011, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of
PremierWest Bancorp and Subsidiary (PremierWest Bancorp) as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in shareholders equity and comprehensive loss, and cash flows for each of the three years
in the period ended December 31, 2010, and of our same report, with respect to PremierWest Bancorps internal controls over financial reporting as of December 31 2010, which is included in this annual report on Form 10-K of PremierWest Bancorp
for the year ended December 31, 2010.



| |  |  | Registration Statement on Form S-1 (No. 333-163201)
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-158315)
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-144895)
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-109419)
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-96649)
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-40886)
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------

/s/ Moss Adams LLP

Portland, Oregon

March 16, 2011
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-2018-0025-6858

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/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_05.09.19.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6807

BERNARD MEEKS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ANNE L. PRECYTHE, Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections; MARK 

R. HERRING, Attorney General of Virginia,

Respondents - Appellees,

and

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:18-cv-00410-MSD-RJK)

Submitted: September 24, 2020 Decided: September 29, 2020

Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Bernard Meeks, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Bernard Meeks seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 petition and denying relief on his postjudgment motion. The district court referred 

this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge 

recommended dismissing the petition and advised Meeks that failure to file timely

objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order 

based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is 

necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the 

parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Martin v. Duffy, 858 

F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see 

also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Meeks has waived appellate review by 

failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving proper 

notice. In addition, we discern no basis for granting a certificate of appealability on the 

denial of Meeks’ postjudgment motion. 

Accordingly, we deny Meeks’ motions for appointment of counsel and a certificate 

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**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
  In
            connection with the quarterly report of Brooklyn Federal Bancorp, Inc.
            (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the
            Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Angelo
            J. Di Lorenzo, President and Chief Executive 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, as amended; and(2)
                    The
                        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
                        material
                        respects, the financial condition and results of operations
                        of the
                        Company.
  Date:
          August 14, 2007
 
 /s/
          Angelo J. Di
          Lorenzo
 Angelo
          J.
          Di Lorenzo
 President
          and Chief Executive Officer