alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

October 26, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2478

American Carbon Company:

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 this particular product is available 

only from China.

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
EXHIBIT 32



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 Annual Report of Cross Timbers Royalty Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:



(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 Trust.



|               |  |  |  |                                                               |  |                     |  |                               
|-------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------- |  | ------------------------------
|               |  |  |  | Bank of America, N.A.,Trustee for Cross Timbers Royalty Trust
|               |  |  | 
|March 16, 2006 |  |  |  | By                                                            |  | /S/ NANCY G. WILLIS
|               |  |  |  |                                                               |  |                     |  | Nancy G. Willis Vice President
Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 75th 

Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

-2.00% -4.34% 0.24% 0.30% -1.76% -4.04%

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Payroll Taxes (including maximum taxable)

Proposed Provision: Apply 2 percent payroll tax rate on earnings over $200,000 in 2017, with the 

$200,000 threshold wage-indexed after 2017. Give no benefit credit for additional earnings in AIME for 

benefit computation.

Present Law Change From Present Law in Results with this provision

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Percent

Year

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

Cost rates with this provision

Income rates under present law

Income rates with this provision

Cost rates under present law

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Percent

Year

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

Present law With this provision

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2009 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actuary, Social Security

May 14, 2010

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Percent

Year

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

Cost rates with this provision

Income rates under present law

Income rates with this provision

Cost rates under present law

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Percent

Year

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

Present law With this provision
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     1996 FORM 10K
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000882288
<NAME>                        TEXTAINER EQUIPMENT INCOME FUND IV, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         2,694
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  7,038
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,391
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               62
<PP&E>                                         124,754
<DEPRECIATION>                                 29,128
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 104,029
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,123
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     100,906
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   104,029
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               23,664
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  15,782
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (447)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                8,329
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   8,329
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 12793]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5614]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353]


Philadelphia Electric Co.; Notice of Withdrawal of Application 
for Amendment to Facility Operating Licenses

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted 
the request of Philadelphia Electric Company (the licensee) to withdraw 
its August 25, 1993, application for proposed amendment to Facility 
Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85, for the Limerick Generating 
Station, Units 1 and 2, respectively, located in Montgomery County, 
Pennsylvania.
    The proposed amendment would have revised the Technical 
Specification Surveillance Requirement 4.5.1 to reduce the frequency 
for venting the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) piping from once 
every 31 days to once every 6 months.
    The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendment published in the Federal Register on September 
29, 1993 (58 FR 50972). However, by letter dated December 21, 1994, the 
licensee withdrew the proposed change.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated August 25, 1993, and the licensee's 
letter dated December 21, 1994, which withdrew the application for 
license amendment. The above documents are available for public 
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman 
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public 
document room located at the Pottstown Public Library, 500 High Street, 
Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19464.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of February 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Frank Rinaldi,
Project Manager, Project Directorate I-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-5614 Filed 3-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
| 1.   | the                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:              April 11,              2006   |                                                |                                |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
|                                                        |                                                |
|                                                   |                                           |                           |
|                                                        |                                                | /s/ Michael              Barth |
|                                                        | Michael              Barth, Chief Financial Officer |
|                                                        | (Principal              Financial Officer)          |

----
EXHIBIT 32.1



CEO CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO



SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with Form 10-Q of POZEN Inc. (the Company), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I,
John R. Plachetka, 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, to my knowledge:



| | 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: April 29, 2005 |  | /s/ John R. Plachetka      
|                     |  | John R. Plachetka, Pharm.D.
|                     |  | Chief Executive Officer    



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 22-10266 

Summary Calendar 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Jose Santos Perez-Gonzalez, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:21-CR-282-1 

Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jose Santos Perez-Gonzalez appeals his conviction and sentence for 

illegal reentry into the United States after deportation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326(a) and (b)(1). Perez-Gonzalez contends that the recidivism 

enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it permits a sentence 

*

 Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

August 26, 2022 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 22-10266 Document: 00516449337 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/26/2022
No. 22-10266 

2 

above the otherwise-applicable statutory maximum established by § 1326(a), 

based on facts that are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury 

beyond a reasonable doubt. He thus argues that the imposition of a threeyear term of supervised release violates due process, and he maintains that 

he should be sentenced to no more than one year of supervised release. While 

Perez-Gonzalez acknowledges this argument is foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), he nevertheless seeks to preserve 

the issue for further review. The Government has moved without opposition 

for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file its 

brief. 

This court has held that subsequent Supreme Court decisions such as 

Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 

U.S. 466 (2000), did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See United States v.

Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019). Accordingly, Perez-Gonzalez is 

correct that his argument is foreclosed, and summary disposition is 

appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th 

Cir. 1969). 

The motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the 

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s 

alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED. 

Case: 22-10266 Document: 00516449337 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/26/2022
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-2018-0025-1696

Brooks Instrument 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
#### Isabella T. Myers, Appellant, v. Bank of Portsmouth, Respondent.

Motion denied, with costs.

Opinion by

Daniels, J.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

April 12, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-1730

EQI, Ltd: 

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

_04.15.19.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,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 1, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11121-11122]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5013]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[NAFTA-00274]


EFR Corporation, Everett, WA; Notice of Negative Determination 
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By an application dated January 9, 1995, a former company official 
requested administrative reconsideration of the subject petition for 
transitional adjustment assistance (NAFTA-TAA). The denial notice was 
issued on December 12, 1994 and published in the Federal Register on 
January 3, 1995 (60 FR 149).
    Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted under 
the following circumstances:
    (1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered 
that the determination complained of was erroneous;
    (2) If it appears that the determination complained of was based on 
a mistake [[Page 11122]] in the determination of facts not previously 
considered; or
    (3) If in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a 
misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of 
the decision.
    The findings show that the subject company was set up in February 
1994 and harvested logs. The partnership was dissolved in November, 
1994.
    In 1994 the company cleared land and sold the logs to one customer 
who did not import logs or lumber.
    The Department's denial was based on the fact that there was no 
shift in production from the workers' firm to Mexico or Canada. The 
Department's survey also revealed that the customer did not import logs 
or lumber from Canada or Mexico.
    The workers were also denied trade adjustment assistance on 
reconsideration under petition TA-W-30, 483.

Conclusion

    After review of the application and investigative findings, I 
conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law 
or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department 
of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied.

    Signed at Washington, D.C., this 16th day of February, 1995.
Victor J. Trunzo,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-5013 Filed 2-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
ex10-52.htm


Exhibit 10.52




April 22, 2011


EXTENSION N4 TO THE


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2003







By and between Siberian Energy Group Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), and Elena Pochapski (“Employee”) entered into this 22nd day of April, 2011 and made effective as of January 1, 2011.







WHEREAS the Company and the Employee previously signed the Employment Agreement, which stated the term of employment to start on September 1, 2003 and to end on December 31, 2008 (the “Agreement”, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A), and subsequent extensions for the year 2009 and 2010 till December 31, 2010;







AND WHEREAS the Company and the Employee wish to further extend the term of the employment agreement;







NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH, that the Company and the Employee agree as follows:







Point 4 “Term” of the employment Agreement to be revised and the term of the Agreement to be extended until June 30, 2011 (the “Extended Term”).







Point 5.1 “Compensation” of the employment Agreement to be revised and annual salary of the Employee to be stated as US$75,000.







Point 6 “Stock Option” of the employment Agreement is to be removed. A new Stock Option agreement will be signed between the Company and the Employee upon the resolution of the Board of directors of the Company.







All other provisions of the Employment Agreement dated September 1, 2003 shall remain in full force and effect until the expiration of the Extended Term.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this agreement to be executed the day and year first above written.













	
EMPLOYEE

	
COMPANY


	  	  
	  	  
	  	  
	/s/ Elena Pochapski	/s/ David Zaikin
	
Elena Pochapski

	
David Zaikin


	
Address: 152 Mullen Drive,

	
Chairman and CEO


	
Thornhill, ON, L4J 2V3

	
Siberian Energy Group Inc.


	
Canada