alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2012 Trade Policy Agenda

and

2011 Annual Report

of the President of the United States

on the Trade Agreements Program

Ambassador Ronald Kirk

Office of the United States Trade Representative
Foreword 

The 2012 Trade Policy Agenda and 2011 Annual Report of the President of the United States on 

the Trade Agreements Program are submitted to the Congress pursuant to Section 163 of the 

Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2213). Chapter II and Annex II of this document meet 

the requirements of Sections 122 and 124 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act with respect to 

the World Trade Organization. In addition, the report also includes an annex listing trade 

agreements entered into by the United States since 1984. Trade data for 2011, where listed, are 

annualized based on January to November data. Services data by country are only available 

through 2009. 

The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is responsible for the preparation 

of this report. U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk gratefully acknowledges in particular the 

contributions of Deputy U.S. Trade Representatives Demetrios Marantis, Michael Punke, and 

Miriam Sapiro; USTR General Counsel Timothy Reif; Chief of Staff Lisa Garcia; and Assistant 

USTR for Public/Media Affairs Carol Guthrie, Senior Policy Advisor Holly Smith, Senior 

Advisor David Roth, and Director of Speechwriting Jeremy Sturchio. Thanks are extended to 

partner Executive Branch agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the 

Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Justice, Labor, State, and 

Treasury. Ambassador Kirk would also like to thank Kimberly Ehrman, Carolyn Esko, and Asa 

Reynolds for their contributions. 

March 2012
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 21, 2011 

y0914 

Order 

 

September 21, 2011 

142910 

GUY HISSONG and BETHANY HISSONG, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

and SC: 142910 

 COA: 294956 

MARK R. DANCER, Wexford CC: 06-019885-CE 

Appellant, 

v 

STEWART BRYCE, CAROLYN BRYCE, 

COUNTY OF WEXFORD, WEXFORD 

COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, 

and WEXFORD COUNTY LANDFILL, 

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

JILANE FENNER and FENNER REAL ESTATE, 

INC., a/k/a EXIT REALTY OF GREATER 

CADILLAC, 

Defendants. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 3, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals, for 

the reasons stated in the Court of Appeals dissenting opinion, and we REMAND this case 

to the Wexford Circuit Court for reconsideration of the defendants’ motion for sanctions 

pursuant to MCR 2.114(D), (E), (F) and MCL 600.2591. On remand, if the circuit court 

again assesses sanctions, we direct the court to determine whether the plaintiffs’ cocounsel at the time of the defendants’ motion for summary disposition—James P. O’Neill 

and Robert Charles Davis—should be held jointly and severally liable for the assessment, 

along with the plaintiffs and their former attorney, Mark R. Dancer. 

 We do not retain jurisdiction.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2518 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2518

To modify the article description relating to 2-Chlorobenzyl chloride, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 5, 2006

  Mr. Talent introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To modify the article description relating to 2-Chlorobenzyl chloride, 
                        and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. 2-CHLOROBENZYL CHLORIDE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.01.56 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to 2-Chlorobenzyl chloride) is 
amended--
            (1) by striking ``2903.69.70'' and inserting 
        ``2903.69.80''; and
            (2) by striking ``12/31/2006'' and inserting ``12/31/
        2009''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply to 
goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 
the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Letter Amendment between GMCR, Inc. and R. Scott McCreary



 Exhibit 10.3 
 LETTER AMENDMENT 
 December 29, 2008 
 Scott McCreary 
 Dear Mr. McCreary, 
 This letter agreement (the “Amendment”) supplements and amends the offer letter (the “Letter”), dated as of September 10, 2004, that you received from Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. (the
“Company”), to clarify its terms in conformity to the requirements of, or if applicable the requirements for exemption from, Section 409A of the Internal Revenue code of 1986, as amended. Except as modified by this Amendment, the
Letter shall remain in full force and effect. 
 By signing this Amendment, you agree and acknowledge that: 
  

	 	1.	The intent of the parities is to clarify the meaning of certain provisions of the Letter so that payments and benefits provided for in the Letter will comply with or be exempt from
Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the regulations and guidance promulgated thereunder (collectively “Section 409A”). The Letter shall be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with that intent. In
no event, however, shall the Company be liable for any tax, interest or penalty that my be imposed on you by Section 4069A. 

  

	 	2.	All reimbursements payable to you, or in-kind benefits, if any, provided to you by the Company shall be governed by the Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. 409A Reimbursement
Policy. 

  

	 	3.	Where the Letter provides for payments to you upon the termination of your employment, those provisions shall be subject to the following terms of construction and the following
Section 409A-related conditions: 

  

	 	3.1.	Any entitlement to severance (12 months of salary continuation) shall require an involuntary “separation from service” by the Company, subject to the exception for cause
contained in the Letter. For this purpose, separation from service means a “separation from service” (as that term is defined at Section 1.409A-1(h) of the Treasury Regulations under Section 409A) from the Company and from all
other trades or businesses that are treated as one employer with the Company under Section 409A’a separation from service rules. 

  

	 	3.2.	 If at the time of your separation from service you are a specified employee (as that term is defined in subsection (a)(2)(B)(i) of Section 409A), any and all
amounts payable in connection with such separation from service that constitute deferred compensation subject to Section 











	 	 
409A, as determined by the Company in its sole discretion, and that would (but for this sentence) be payable within six months following such separation from
service, shall instead by paid on the date that follows the date of such separation from service by six (6) months. 


  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc.
	
	 /s/ Kathryn Brooks

	A duly authorized signatory


  

	
	ACCEPTED AND AGREED:
	
	 /s/ Scott McCreary

	Scott McCreary
	
	Date: December 29, 2008

  

 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO.: 5:98cr02-SPM

ISRAEL HERNANDEZ,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PRESERVE

RIGHT TO CHALLENGE DRUG AMOUNTS

Pending before the Court is Defendant Israel Hernandez’s Motion to

Preserve the Right to Challenge Drug Amounts (doc. 181). Defendant has

already been sentenced and he has pending a 2255 motion to allow for a belated

appeal. If the 2255 motion is granted, the issue of preservation would properly

be addressed by the appellate court. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion to Preserve the

Right to Challenge Drug Amounts (doc. 181) is denied without prejudice to

Defendant’s opportunity to raise the issue if he is granted a belated appeal.

DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of January, 2006.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 5:98-cr-00002-RS-AK Document 182 Filed 01/17/06 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

PHYNERRIAN MANNING,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 5:03-CV-304-SPM

CHARLENE SMITH, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

AND DISMISSING CASE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the magistrate judge's report

and recommendation (doc. 25) dated August 11, 2005. The parties have been

furnished a copy and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections. 

Plaintiff filed his objections on September 1, 2005 (doc. 26).

Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), I have made

a de novo determination of those portions to which an objection has been made. 

Plaintiff has not shown that the employees of the institutional mailroom retaliated

against him in any way; rather, it appears that one or more employees was

simply careless in leaving the envelope off to one side and never following up on

Case 5:03-cv-00304-SPM-AK Document 28 Filed 09/12/05 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

1

 While the envelope itself was not labeled “legal mail,” it is difficult to imagine what else would be

contained in an envelope bearing the return address of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

the contents of the disk.1 When the envelope was found, institutional officials

contacted the Eleventh Circuit and explained the circumstances.

Although Plaintiff’s motion was ultimately denied, it was not because of the

lack of a reply brief from Plaintiff. The appellate court made no mention of either

an untimely brief or the absence of a brief in its opinion; its analysis focused on

the facts found in the transcript and the record on appeal, eventually holding that

the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial. 

Thus, Plaintiff’s brief would not have added any new or crucial facts that would

have changed the outcome of the case. 

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 25) is

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 20) is hereby

granted.

3. Plaintiff’s complaint (doc. 1) is hereby dismissed for failure to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

Case 5:03-cv-00304-SPM-AK Document 28 Filed 09/12/05 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

 §1915(e)(2)(B)(I).

DONE AND ORDERED this twelfth day of September, 2005.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

/pao

Case 5:03-cv-00304-SPM-AK Document 28 Filed 09/12/05 Page 3 of 3
#### § 52.36 How officially drawn samples are to be identified.

Officially drawn samples shall be marked by the inspector or licensed sampler so such samples can be properly identified for inspection.
32.205 Procedures for offeror-proposed commercial contract financing.       (a) 						            Under this procedure, each offeror may propose financing terms. The contracting officer must then determine which offer is in the best interests of the United States.                                          (b)                   *Solicitations.* The contracting officer must include in the solicitation the provision at 52.232-31, invitation to Propose Financing Terms. The contracting officer must also-                                                         (1) 								                Specify the delivery payment (invoice) dates that will be used in the evaluation of financing proposals; and                                                            (2) 								                Specify the interest rate to be used in the evaluation of financing proposals (see paragraph (c)(4) of this section).                                                                             (c) 						            Evaluation of proposals.                                                         (1) 								                When contract financing terms vary among offerors, the contracting officer must adjust each proposed price for evaluation purposes to reflect the cost of providing the proposed financing in order to determine the total cost to the Government of that particular combination of price and financing.                                                            (2) 								                Contract financing results in the Government making payments earlier than it otherwise would. In order to determine the cost to the Government of making payments earlier, the contracting officer must compute the imputed cost of those financing payments and add it to the proposed price to determine the evaluated price for each offeror.                                                            (3) 								                The imputed cost of a single financing payment is the amount of the payment multiplied by the annual interest rate, multiplied by the number of years, or fraction thereof, between the date of the financing payment and the date the amount would have been paid as a delivery payment. The imputed cost of financing is the sum of the imputed costs of each of the financing payments.                                                            (4) 								                The contracting officer must calculate the time value of proposal-specified contract financing arrangements using as the interest rate the nominal discount rate specified in AppendixC of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) CircularA-94, "Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs," appropriate to the period of contract financing. Where the period of proposed financing does not match the periods in the OMB Circular, the interest rate for the period closest to the finance period shall be used. AppendixC is updated yearly, and is available from the Office of Economic Policy in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).    **Parent topic:** Subpart 32.2 - Commercial Product and Commercial Service Purchase Financing
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 231 (Thursday, December 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 75187]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30321]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold its second field hearing to examine 
the municipal securities markets on Tuesday, December 7, 2010 at 9 a.m.
    The hearing will include panel discussions focusing on market 
stability and liquidity, investor impact, self-regulation, accounting 
and Build America Bonds.
    The panel discussion and presentations will take place in the 
Auditorium of the Commission's headquarters at 100 F Street, NE., 
Washington, DC and will be open to the public with seating on a first-
come, first-served basis. Visitors will be subject to security checks. 
The hearing also will be webcast live at http://www.sec.gov.
    For further information, please contact the Office of the Secretary 
at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: November 29, 2010.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-30321 Filed 11-30-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
#### In re HUMMEL.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July 12, 1906.)

In the matter of Abraham H. Hummel.

Respondent suspended pending appeal.
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before 

HACKEL, FLUHR, and BLOSSER

Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

David G. HOTZ III

Private First Class (E-2), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

No. 202300081

_________________________

Decided: 21 September 2023

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judges: 

Benjamin Robles (arraignment)

Ryan Lipton (trial)

Sentence adjudged 5 November 2022 by a general court-martial convened at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, consisting 

of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment:

reduction to E-1, confinement for 22 months, dishonorable discharge.1

 

1 Appellant received 265 days of confinement credit, consisting of 205 days of pretrial confinement credit and 60 days of judicially ordered credit.
United States v. Hotz, NMCCA No. 202300081

Opinion of the Court

2

For Appellant: 

Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Neely, USMC

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under 

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).

_________________________

PER CURIAM:

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, and Appellant having not challenged the factual sufficiency of this case, 

we have determined that the findings are correct in law, the sentence is correct 

in law and fact, and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred.2

The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

MARK K. JAMISON

Clerk of Court

 

2 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2540 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Deltamethrin. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 5, 2006 

Mr. TALENT introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Deltamethrin. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. 1236. DELTAMETHRIN. 

4 Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tar5 iff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting 

6 in numerical sequence the following new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.11.26 (S)-α-Cyano-3- 

phenoxybenzyl (1R,3R)–3- 

(2,2-dibromovinyl)–2,2- 

dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate (Deltamethrin) (CAS 

No. 52918–63–5) (provided 

for in subheading 

2926.90.30) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 


HMoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 2540 IS 

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

2 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


HMoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-141386) of our report dated March 23, 2007, relating to the financial statements and financial highlights of Kohlberg Capital Corporation appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K
of Kohlberg Capital Corporation for the period December 11, 2006 (commencement of operations) through December 31, 2006.



|                             |  | 
|---------------------------- |  | 
|/s/    DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
|                             | 
|New York, New York           |  | 
|March 26, 2007               |  |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 5:98cr36-SPM

CORY FLUELLEN,

Defendant.

____________________________/

ORDER EXTENDING TIME AND DENYING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant Cory Fluellen’s

letter, treated as a motion, requesting appointment of counsel and an extension

of time to respond. Doc. 434. Upon consideration, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The motion (doc. 434) is denied as to the request for appointment

of counsel.

2. The motion (doc. 434) is granted as to the extension of time. 

Defendant shall have up to and including February 13, 2012, to file his response.

DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of January, 2012.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Senior United States District Judge

Case 5:98-cr-00036-RH Document 435 Filed 01/30/12 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

EMERALD COAST RESTAURANTS

INC

VS CASE NO. 3:20-cv-05898-TKW-HTC

ASPEN SPECIALTY INSURANCE

COMPANY

JUDGMENT

Pursuant to and at the direction of the Court, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case be DISMISSED with prejudice, and

judgment hereby entered in favor of Defendant, ASPEN SPECIALTY INSURANCE

COMPANY.

 June 29, 2022

JESSICA J. LYUBLANOVITS

CLERK OF COURT

/s/ `ÉÇ|vt UÜÉâáátÜw

DATE Deputy Clerk: Monica Broussard

 

Case 3:20-cv-05898-TKW-HTC Document 37 Filed 06/29/22 Page 1 of 1
Case 3:20-cv-05913-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 10/29/20 Page 1 of 12
Case 3:20-cv-05913-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 10/29/20 Page 2 of 12
Case 3:20-cv-05913-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 10/29/20 Page 3 of 12
Case 3:20-cv-05913-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 10/29/20 Page 4 of 12
Case 3:20-cv-05913-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 10/29/20 Page 5 of 12
Case 3:20-cv-05913-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 10/29/20 Page 6 of 12
Case 3:20-cv-05913-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 10/29/20 Page 7 of 12
Case 3:20-cv-05913-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 10/29/20 Page 8 of 12
Case 3:20-cv-05913-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 10/29/20 Page 9 of 12
Case 3:20-cv-05913-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 10/29/20 Page 10 of 12
Case 3:20-cv-05913-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 10/29/20 Page 11 of 12
Case 3:20-cv-05913-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 10/29/20 Page 12 of 12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MOAMMAR BADAWI DOKHAN, et al.,

Petitioners,

v. Civil Action No. 08-0987 (JDB)

GEORGE W. BUSH, et al.,

 Respondents.

ORDER

Pursuant to petitioner's response to the Court's September 1, 2009 Order to Show Cause

why his habeas petition should not be dismissed, and upon consideration of the entire record

herein, it is hereby ORDERED that petitioner's habeas corpus petition is DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED.

 /s/ 

 JOHN D. BATES

 United States District Judge

Dated: September 23, 2009
#### § 520.2 Definition.

*Control Agents* mean biological material or chemicals which are intended to enhance the production efficiency of an agricultural crop or animal such as through elimination of a pest.