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

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2456

C.H. Hanson Co:

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 10.1


 


 


 


 


December 22, 2022


 


Ms. Lynda Chervil


Chief Executive Officer


Internet Sciences, Inc.


521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor


New York, NY 10175


 


Dear Lynda,


 


Based on the vote of shareholders, I hereby resign from the Board of
Directors of Internet Sciences, Inc effective end of day December 31, 2022.


 


I wish you the best in your efforts to continue developing the company.


 


Sincerely,


 


/s/ Lisa Bonalle-Hannan


 


Lisa Bonalle-Hannan
#### GEORGE JOYNER v. HOME SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.

(Filed 18 March, 1931.)

Appeal by plaintiff from. *Moore, Special Judge,*at February Term, 1931, of Wake.

Civil action to recover on a contract of insurance.

The defendant pleaded fraud in the procurement of the policy, and, on evidence to support the finding, this issue was answered in favor of the defendant. Judgment entered accordingly.

Motion by plaintiff “to set aside the verdict as a matter of law”; overruled; exception; appeal.

*George W. Ball for plaintiff.*

*Thoe. W. Ruffin for defmdcmt.*

Per Oueiam.

The record contains no exceptive assignment of error which can be sustained.

No error.
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 18, 2018.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-18-01011-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.Z.S., JR., J.A.S., J.S., CHILDREN 

On Appeal from the 311th District Court 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 2016-83144 

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 

This is an attempted appeal from a final decree terminating the parent-child 

relationship between appellant K.L.E. and her children. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 

161.001(b). The final decree was signed October 10, 2018. Appellant filed a notice 

of appeal November 16, 2018.

An appeal in a parental termination suit is accelerated. Tex. R. App. P. 

28.4(a)(2)(A). A notice of appeal in an accelerated case must be filed within twenty

days after the judgment is signed. Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(b). The deadline may be 

extended by fifteen days if, within that fifteen-day period, appellant files the notice 
2

of appeal in the trial court and a motion for extension of time in the court of appeals. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). 

Unlike in a non-accelerated appeal, a timely-filed post-judgment motion does not 

extend the deadline to file the notice of appeal in an accelerated appeal. In re K.A.F., 

160 S.W.3d 923, 926–27 (Tex. 2005).

Appellant’s notice of appeal was due October 30, 2018 but was not filed until 

November 16, 2018. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(b). A court of appeals lacks 

jurisdiction to hear an appeal that was not timely perfected. When the court lacks 

jurisdiction, it must dismiss the appeal. See Baker v. Baker, 469 S.W.3d 269, 272 

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, no pet.).

On November 27, 2018, we notified the parties that we would dismiss this 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction if no party demonstrated, by December 10, 2018, 

meritorious grounds for retaining the appeal. Appellant filed a response in which her 

attorney argues that the failure to timely file a notice of appeal was not purposeful 

or intended to delay appellate counsel. Counsel’s affidavit notes that appellate 

counsel has been notified of the need to request an out-of-time appeal. This court, 

however, does not have jurisdiction to consider any appeal unless our jurisdiction 

has been timely invoked. See In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d at 928; In re R.B.M., 338 

S.W.3d 755, 757–58 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (noting that 

the high court may have authority to grant an out-of-time appeal). Appellant’s 

response does not demonstrate that this court has jurisdiction over this appeal.

We dismiss the appeal. 

 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher, and Jewell.
#### MRS. LLOYD V. PARSONS, Widow of LLOYD V. PARSONS, v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WATAUGA COUNTY et al.

(For digest see *Parsons v. Boar ct of Btkication, ante,*88.)

(Filed 19 December, 1930.)

Appeal by respondent from *Finley, J.,*at August Term, 1930, of Ashe.

Affirmed.

Tbis was an appeal from the North Carolina Industrial Commission, heard on exceptions to the award made by said Commission in favor of claimant, the widow of Lloyd Y. Parsons, deceased, and against the respondent, the Board of Education of Watauga County, and the United States Fidelity Company. The exceptions were overruled.

From judgment affirming the award respondents appealed to the Supreme Court.

*W. B. Bauguess for claimant.*

*Trevelle & Holshouser for respondent.*

*Attorney-General Brwmmitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for Industrial Commission (by request).*

Pee CueiaM.

The court being evenly divided in opinion, *Stacy, C. J.,*not sitting, the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed and stands as the decision in this case, without becoming a precedent. *Gooch v. Western Union Telegraph Co.,*196 N. C., 823, 146 S. E., 803, and cases cited. See, also, *Parsons v. Board of Education of Ashe County, ante, 88.*

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1



STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

OF PREMIERE GLOBAL SERVICES, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual
Report of Premiere Global Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Boland T. Jones,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



/s/ Boland T. JonesBoland T. JonesChief Executive OfficerPremiere Global Services, Inc.March 14, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           2,202
<SECURITIES>                                    26,394
<RECEIVABLES>                                      638
<ALLOWANCES>                                        60
<INVENTORY>                                         58
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,546
<PP&E>                                           4,160
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,067
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30,639
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,292
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                            14
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,332
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,639
<SALES>                                            224
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,265
<CGS>                                              134
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,216
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   6
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,709)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,709)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,709)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.52)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

CFO 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, William L. Hodges, 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, 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: May 2, 2006 |  | /s/ William L. Hodges  
|                  |  | William L. Hodges      
|                  |  | Chief Financial 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.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 24, 2015

No. 04-15-00242-CV

IN RE UNIVERSITY OF THE INCARNATE WORD

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

On April 21, 2015, relator University of the Incarnate Word filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus. The court has considered relator’s petition, the response and reply of the parties, and 

has determined that relator is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, the petition for writ of 

mandamus is CONDITIONALLY GRANTED. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(c). 

The Honorable David A. Canales is ORDERED to vacate the May 1, 2015 order granting 

plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery responses. The writ will issue only if we are notified that 

Judge Canales has not done as directed within fifteen days from the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED on June 24, 2015.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 24th day of June, 2015.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2014-CI-07249, styled Valerie Redus, Individually and Robert Redus, 

Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Robert Cameron Redus v. University of the Incarnate Word and 

Christopher Carter, pending in the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable David A. 

Canales presiding.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

FRANK JEFFS,

Petitioner

v.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF

PHILADELPHIA COUNTY,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 146 EM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 15th day of February

, 2019, the Application for Leave to File

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED.
Section 301 Investigation: China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology 

Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation - Form to Request Exclusion of Product 

When submitting a product exclusion request using this form, enter the specified 

information in the following fields and explain the basis and rationale for your statements. 

By completing this form, you certify that the information provided is complete and 

correct to the best of your knowledge. 

1. Indicate whether the comment contains business confidential information (BCI), is a public 

document, or is a public version of a BCI document. 

Public Version of BCI 

2. Please provide a complete and detailed description of the product of concern: 

Please see Exhibit 1 to attached narrative explanation for this Request. 

3. 10-digit HTSUS item number* for product you wish to address in this product exclusion request: 

*Use numerical characters only with no special characters (example: 1023456789). For help in finding 

the HTSUS item number associated with your product, see https://hts.usitc.gov/ 

9022.90.4000 

4. Requestor Information 

Requestor Name (Last, First): 

Organization Name: 

Ward, Tyler 

Varex Imaging Corporation 

Note: Representatives submitting on behalf of an organization must enter information below. 

Requestor Representative: Nelson G. Dong, Troy Keller, T. Augustine Lo (Dorsey & Whitney LLP) 

5. Requestor's relationship to the product: Importer 

6. Does this submission in regulations.govinclude additional attachments? 

YES 

7. Please indicate whether any additional attachment contains business confidential 

information (BCI), is a public document, or is a public version of a BCI document. 

Public Version of BCI 

VERSION 1 CONTINUED BELOW 1 
B. Is this product, or a comparable product, available from sources in the United States?: 

NO 

9. Is this product, or a comparable product, available from sources in third countries?: 

NO 

10. Please provide the value and quantity (with units) of the Chinese-origin product of concern 

that you purchased for each calendar year specified. Limit this figure to the products 

purchased by your firm (or by members of your trade association) alone. Please provide 

estimates if precise figures are unavailable. 

2017 Value: BCI 2017 Quantity: BCI 

2016 Value: N/A 2016 Quantity: N/A 

2015 Value: N/A 2015 Quantity: N/A 

11. Please provide information in support your request, taking account of the instructions 

provided in Section B of the Federal Register notice (note: text entered below can extend 

beyond the apparent size of this box). 

Please see the attached narrative explanation for this Request. We note in particular Section V.A. 

which relates to Questions 8 and 9 above. 

VERSION 1 END 2
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2435

Curtis Instruments, Inc:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20.

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

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

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
#### MRS. LOUISE NORRELL MALLARD v. F. M. BOHANNON, INC., Employer, and MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, Carrier.

(Filed 29 April, 1942.)

Master and Servant § 39c—

When the contract of employment is for services to be rendered exclusively outside this State and such services in fact are performed in their entirety outside its borders, our Workmen’s Compensation Act has no application. Ch. 120, Public Laws 1929, as amended.

ON REHEARING.

*Chas. J. Bloch and Boy L. Deal for plaintiff, appellee.*

*Hutchins ■& Parleer, W. O. Ginter, and L. B. Carpenter for defendants, appellants.*

Barnhill, J.

The merits of the controversy involved on this appeal were fully debated on the original hearing. See *Mallard v. Bohannon,*220 N. C., 536, and dissenting opinion at p. 545. A majority of the Court are now of the opinion that the rationale of the dissenting opinion should prevail.

When the contract of employment is for services to be rendered exclusively outside the State of North Carolina and such services in fact are performed in their entirety elsewhere than in this State our Workmen’s Compensation Act. ch. 120, Public Laws 1929, as amended, has no application.

Petition allowed.
**Exhibit 31.2**
 
 **CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULES**
 **13A-14 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF**
 **THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 I, John D. Mazzuto, the Chief Financial Officer (the principal financial officer) of Industrial Enterprises of America, Inc., certify that:
 
 1.
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Industrial Enterprises of America, Inc.; 
 2.
Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 
 3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 
 4.
The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 
 a.
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; and 
 b.
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation. 
 5.
The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 
 a.
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 
 b.
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting. 
 6.
The registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. 
 
 Dated: December 31, 2004
  
 /s/ John D. Mazzuto
 John D. Mazzuto, Chief Financial
 Officer, Vice Chairman of the Board and Assistant Secretary