alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### M & O REALTY, INC., Appellant, v. Donald M. BACON, Lil Berry, d/b/a Eureka Tractor, Respondents.

No. 69137.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District.

Dec. 3, 1996.

David J. Barton, Arnold, for appellant.

Katharyn B. Davis, Davis & Weisman, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before AHRENS, C.J., CRANDALL, J., and CHARLES B. BLACKMAR, Senior Judge.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an unlawful detain-er action brought by M & 0 Realty against Donald Bacon. The trial court entered judgment in favor of M & 0 Realty and awarded damages of $4,000.00. M *& O*Realty appeals, alleging that the trial court erred by not awarding damages in accordance with § 534.310, RSMo 1994, the unlawful detainer statute.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JACQUES GARABET MAKSOUDIAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-72059

Agency No. A094-211-943

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 19, 2010** 

Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

Jacques Garabet Maksoudian, a native and citizen of Lebanon, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to

reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Ordonez v. INS,

FILED

JUL 30 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-72059

345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny in part and grant in part the

petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Maksoudian’s motion to

reopen to apply for asylum and withholding because it was untimely and numberbarred, see 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c)(2), and Maksoudian failed to establish changed

country conditions in Lebanon to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time

and number limitations, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Malty v. Ashcroft,

381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The critical question is ... whether

circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not

have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future

persecution.”).

Because the BIA failed to address Maksoudian’s CAT claim in denying the

motion to reopen, we remand for the BIA to determine if reopening is warranted. 

See Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The BIA [is] not

free to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner.”).

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;

REMANDED.
#### Genevieve CAMPBELL, as Personal Representative, et al., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITIZENS BANK OF EDINA, Defendant-Respondent.

No. 68747.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

May 28, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied June 26, 1996.

Application to Transfer Denied Aug. 20, 1996.

John David Collins, Macon, for appellant.

Marion F. Wasinger, Hanibal, Edward Leon Campbell, Kirksville, for respondent.

Before CRAHAN, P.J., and CRANDALL and DOWD, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals summary judgment in favor of Defendant on all counts of her equitable action which sought to establish that certain debts she owed to Defendant were void and that properties given to Defendant in partial satisfaction of these debts were equitable mortgages rather that absolute conveyances. We affirm.

We have reviewed the brief of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
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-2018-0025-5577

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
**Exhibit 21.1**

**SUBSIDIARIESOF STATION CASINOS, INC.**

PalaceStation Hotel & Casino, Inc.

BoulderStation, Inc.

TexasStation, LLC

SunsetStation, Inc.

SantaFe Station, Inc.

FiestaStation, Inc.

RanchoStation, LLC

LakeMead Station, Inc.

TropicanaStation, Inc.

CharlestonStation, LLC

MagicStar Station, LLC

GoldRush Station, LLC

PalmStation, LLC

FiestaPalms, LLC (6.7% ownership)

GreenValley Station, Inc.:

TownCenter Amusements, Inc.

d.b.a.Barley’s Casino & Brewing Company (50% ownership)

GreensCafé, LLC

d.b.aThe Greens (50% ownership)

GVRanch Station, Inc.:

GreenValley Ranch Gaming, LLC (50% ownership)

AlianteStation, LLC:

AlianteHolding, LLC (50% ownership)

DurangoStation, Inc.

FrontStreet Station, LLC

StationCasino Red Rock Residential, LLC:

RedRock Residential, LLC (80% ownership)

StationHoldings, Inc.

TownCenter Station, LLC

CareyStation Holdings, LLC

FiestaStation Holdings, LLC

LakeMead Station Holdings, LLC

VistaHoldings, LLC

CenterlineHoldings, LLC

StationCalifornia, LLC

StationDevelopment, LLC

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON
PAGE 38 AND 39 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE, AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          50,158
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,288
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,209
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                87,491
<PP&E>                                       1,296,217
<DEPRECIATION>                                 163,498
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,300,216
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          197,509
<BONDS>                                        528,588
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    103,500
<COMMON>                                           353
<OTHER-SE>                                     183,034
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,300,216
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               769,610
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  419,149
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                67,414
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              78,826
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,120)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       966
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,154)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (2,042)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,441)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.35)
        

</TABLE>
#### John D. COOPER, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Don DARR & Don Darr Pontiac, Inc., Defendants/Appellants, and Diestelkamp Construction Co., Defendant/Respondent.

No. 66920.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

May 2, 1995.

Thomas J. Casey, Jonathan E. Fortman, Casey *&*Meyerkord, St. Louis, for appellant.

Patricia A. Manhart, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before AHRENS, P.J., and GRIMM and KAROHL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, John Cooper, appeals after summary judgment in favor of defendant, Dies-telkamp Construction Co., on his personal injury claim.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
exv10w2





Exhibit 10.2





			
	To:	 	HSH Nordbank AG

Gerhart-Hauptmann-Platz 50

20095

Hamburg

Germany




Dear Sirs




8 January 2010



Facility Agreement dated 1 February 2007 (as amended by supplemental agreements dated 15 November
2007, 24 December 2007 and 23 March 2009, the “Facility Agreement”) made between ourselves as
borrower, yourselves and Commerzbank AG in relation to a term loan of US$280,000,000 and a
revolving credit facility of up to US$120,000,000.



We refer to the Facility Agreement.



Words and expressions defined in the Facility Agreement will have the same meaning when used in
this letter.



Pursuant to our request that you release and discharge the Mortgage over “NAVIOS HYPERION”
on the terms set out in this letter, for good and valuable consideration, we hereby irrevocably and
unconditionally confirm and agree:-





	1.	 	that as a condition precedent to the release of the Mortgage we shall credit to the Retention
Account the sum of USD26,640,643.59. The balance on the Retention Account (excluding the sums
standing to the credit thereof in relation to the monthly retentions made pursuant to Clause
14 of the Facility Agreement) will then be USD117,518,552.59 (the “Pledged Amount”);
	 
	2.	 	the amount to be released to us from the Pledged Amount upon execution of a Mortgage over a
Substitute Vessel shall be in an amount so that the ratio of the aggregate of the Loan and the
Revolving Facility to the Security Value immediately after such release from the Pledged
Amount is the same as the Required Ratio;
	 
	3.	 	“Required Ratio” means the largest of the following






	 	(a)	 	the ratio of the aggregate of the Loan and the Revolving Facility
immediately prior to the sale of “NAVIOS HYPERION” to the Security Value on that
date;
	 
	 	(b)	 	the ratio of the aggregate of the Loan and the Revolving Facility on
the date of execution of a Mortgage over the said Substitute Vessel to the Security
Value on that date;
	 
	 	(c)	 	the ratio of the aggregate of the Loan and the Revolving Facility
immediately prior to the sale of ten Vessels on 2 November 2009 to the Security
Value at that time; and





 









 






	 	(d)	 	the ratio of the Aggregate Loan Amount to Security Value required under
the Facility Agreement on the date on which the Substitute Vessel becomes a
Mortgaged Vessel.






	4.	 	The Facility Agreement shall be read and construed as if it had been amended by and in
accordance with the terms of this letter.
	 
	5.	 	in case of conflict between the terms of this letter and the letter of 2 November 2009
addressed by us to yourselves in relation to Substitute Vessels, the terms of this letter
shall apply.




All other terms of the Facility Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.



This letter shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, English law.



Yours faithfully




/s/
Vasiliki Papaefthymiou      
Vasiliki Papaefthymiou




for and on behalf of

NAVIOS MARITIME HOLDINGS INC.




CONFIRMED AND AGREED




/s/
Robin
Parry            
Robin
Parry




HSH NORDBANK AG

January 2010





2
**EXHIBIT 31.01**

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

I, Robert D. Ollwerther, Chief Executive Officer and President of Merrill Lynch AlternativeInvestments LLC, the manager of ML Aspect FuturesAccess LLC, certify that:

1. I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-Q of ML Aspect 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 myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, 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’sother certifying 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 ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; 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:  August 14, 2007
| By                                                                    | /s/ ROBERT D.  OLLWERTHER |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------|--------|
| Robert D.  Ollwerther                                                 |
| Chief Executive  Officer and President  (Principal Executive Officer) |

 

----
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 OC Financial, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
W. Hughes, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer and I, Danny E.
Hosler, Chief 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, 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:   February 14, 2006


/s/ Robert W. Hughes
--------------------
Robert W. Hughes
Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer


/s/ Danny E. Hosler
-------------------
Danny E. Hosler
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6844

Otis Elevator Co: 

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.

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
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

Wniteb ~tate~ QCourt of ~peaI~

for tbe jfeberaI QCircuit

WEN CHIANN YEH,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

Respondent.

2012-3216

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection

Board in case no. CH1221110433-W-2.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Wen Chiann Yeh moves for an extension of time, until

October 22, 2012, to file his informal brief.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT Is ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted.

Case: 12-3216 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 10/23/2012
WEN YEH V. DEFENSE

s27

FOR THE COURT

lsI Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

2

Case: 12-3216 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 10/23/2012
#### Maria LUGO, Appellant, v. DIXON TOM-A-TOE COMPANIES, INC., Respondent.

No. WD 48077.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Nov. 30, 1993.

Henri Watson, Kansas City, for appellant.

Hollis Hanover, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before HANNA, P.J, and LOWENSTEIN and FENNER, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Maria Lugo appeals the decision by the Labor & Industrial Relations Commission which found that Lugo suffered a twenty-two percent (22%) permanent partial disability as a result of an accident at work.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Summary of Senior Management Bonus Plan for 2010



 Exhibit 10.8 

Summary of Senior Management Bonus Plan for 2010 

On March 11, 2010, the Compensation Committee adopted a Senior Management Bonus Plan for 2010 (the “2010 Bonus Plan”). The 2010 Bonus Plan
provides cash bonus incentives to eligible senior management team members, including Messrs. Haghighi-Mood and LiCausi. 
 The objective of the
2010 Bonus Plan is to provide an effective tool to help motivate the executive’s performance in achieving the Company’s defined strategy and goals by aligning measurement and accountability with rewards. In accordance with the terms of
Mr. Haghighi-Mood’s Employment Agreement with the Company, Mr. Haghighi-Mood’s total bonus potential under the 2010 Bonus Plan is 50% of his annual base pay. The total bonus potential for Mr. LiCausi under the 2010 Bonus
Plan is 30% of his base pay. Rewards for eligible participants under the 2010 Bonus Plan are based on performance as measured by corporate goals for the Company. A different percentage weight has been assigned to each goal with the total percentage
weight of 100%. 
 The corporate goals under the 2010 Bonus Plan consist of four separate goals each weighted between 20% and 40% relating to:
(1) achievement of certain pre-determined revenue for the year ending December 31, 2010, (2) execution of a material distribution agreement or partnership approved by the Board of Directors, (3) the launch of a CSCX MTWA Module
by September 30, 2010, and (4) achievement of predetermined enrollment in an ischemia pilot study.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

OBDUELLA DAVID SOTO, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D16-3491

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed April 4, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee 

County; J. Frank Porter, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and Pamela H. Izakowitz, Assistant 

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Michael Schaub, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

LaROSE, C.J., and CASANUEVA and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.