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 18, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2093

IEWC 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 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
#### ADDIE CORY v. J. B. CORY.

(Filed 20 September, 1933.)

Automobiles C a — Driver turning to right and leaving sufficient room may assume that approaching car null turn to right and avoid collision.

Evidence tending to show that defendant drove his car on the right side of the road and left sufficient room for an approaching car to pass is insufficient to take the case to the jury in an action by a guest in defendant’s car for an injury sustained in a collision of the cars, based on defendant's alleged negligence in failing to turn off the highway and drive on the shoulders of the road, the defendant having the right to assume that the driver of the approaching car would turn to his right and avoid the collision, and there being no evidence that the situation was such that defendant was negligent in failing to drive on the shoulders of the road.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Clement, J.,*at March Term, 1933, of GteahaM.

Affirmed.

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff while she was riding in an automobile driven by the defendant, as his guest.

*206The injuries suffered by tbe plaintiff were caused by a bead-on collision between the automobile in which she was riding and another automobile.

The allegations in the complaint that the collision between the two automobiles was caused by the negligence of the defendant in failing to drive his automobile off the highway, and thus avoiding the collision, were denied in the answer.

At the close of the evidence for the plaintiff, the defendant moved for judgment dismissing the action as upon nonsuit, on the ground that there .was no evidence tending to sustain the cause of action alleged in the complaint. The motion was allowed, and plaintiff excepted.

From judgment dismissing the action, the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.

*Moody é Moody for plaintiff.*

*Johnston & Horner for defendant.*

Pee Cueiam.

All the evidence offered by the plaintiff at the trial of this action showed that when he observed the approaching automobile, the defendant drove his automobile, in which the plaintiff was riding as his guest, on the right side of the highway, leaving ample space for the driver of the approaching automobile to pass in safety. There was no evidence tending to show a situation in which defendant was negligent in failing to drive his automobile off the highway onto the shoulder. He had a right to assume that the driver of the approaching automobile would drive to his right, and thus pass him without a collision. *Shirley v. Ayers,*201 N. C., 51, 158 S. E., 340. The judgment dismissing the action is

Affirmed.
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-2018-0025-3072

NSK Corporation:

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

General Counsel
Exhibit 10.70.1



EMPLOYMENT LETTER AGREEMENT AMENDMENT



John R. Zavoli (Employee) and Path 1 Network Technologies Inc. (the Company) hereby agree to amend
the October 16, 2002 employment letter agreement between them as follows:



Notwithstanding anything in such agreement to the contrary, if any post-termination payment to Employee otherwise called for by such agreement would, if paid later than March 15 of the calendar year after the
calendar year in which Employees employment with the Company terminates (the Ides of March), constitute deferred compensation subject to Internal Revenue Code Section 409A, then such payment (to the extent not already
paid by the Ides of March) shall instead be due and payable in full on the Ides of March.



Except as expressly set forth herein, such agreement (as it may have been previously amended to date) remains unchanged and in full force and effect.



Dated: September 23, 2005



/s/ John R. ZavoliJOHN R. ZAVOLIPATH 1 NETWORK TECHNOLOGIES INC.By:

/s/ Frederick CaryFrederick Cary, Co-Principal Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 51 (Thursday, March 16, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 14325]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6532]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of Thrift Supervision


Carteret Federal Savings Bank; Notice of Replacement of 
Conservator With a Receiver

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the authority contained in 
subdivision (C) of Sec. 5(d)(2) of the Home Owners' Loan Act, the 
Office of Thrift Supervision duly replaced the Resolution Trust 
Corporation as Conservator for Carteret Federal Savings Bank, Madison, 
New Jersey (``Association''), with the Resolution Trust Corporation as 
sole Receiver for the Association on March 10, 1995.

    Dated: March 13, 1995.

    By the Office of Thrift Supervision.
Nadine Y. Washington,
Corporate Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-6532 Filed 3-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6720-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 1, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 11119]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5012]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-29,802]


Western Geophysical Company, A/K/A Halliburton Company, A/K/A 
Western Atlas International, Inc., Houston, TX and TA-W-29,802A Alvin, 
TX and TA-W-29,802B Offshore Marine Operations in the Gulf of Mexico; 
Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker 
Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to 
Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance applicable to all workers of the 
subject firm.
    The certification was issued on May 31, 1994 and published in the 
Federal Register on June 14, 1994 (59 FR 30618). The certification was 
amended on June 15, 1994; July 18, 1994 and on November 1, 1994 and the 
notices were published in the Federal Register on June 28, 1994 (59 FR 
33306); July 26, 1994 (59 FR 37997); and on November 15, 1995 (59 FR 
58859), respectively.
    At the request of the company, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. New findings show that 
worker separations occurred offshore in the Gulf of Mexico.
    Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to 
properly reflect the correct worker group.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of the Western Geophysical Company, a/k/a Halliburton Company 
and Western Atlas International, Inc., Houston, Texas who were 
adversely affected by increased imports of crude oil.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-29,802 is hereby issued as 
follows:

``All workers of Western Geophysical Company, Houston, Texas and 
Alvin, Texas and offshore in the Gulf of Mexico (the successor-in-
interest firm to Halliburton Geophysical Services) who had wages 
reported under Western Atlas International, Inc., Houston, Texas for 
UI tax account purposes and who had become totally or partially 
separated from employment on or after April 25, 1993 are eligible to 
apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act 
of 1974.''

    Signed at Washington, D.C., this 17th day of February, 1994.
Victor J. Trunzo,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-5012 Filed 2-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
#### BENTLEY *v.*ALASKA.

No. 648, Misc.

Decided June 10, 1963.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*George N. Hayes,*Attorney General of Alaska, and *John K. Brubaker,*Assistant Attorney General, for - respondent.

Per Curiam.

The motion for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Alaska for reconsideration in light of *Brady*v. *Maryland,*373 U. S. 83, and *Mooney*v. *Holohan,*294 U. S. 103.
#### In the Matter of WAYLAND WHITE, JR. (State *v.*Wayland White, Jr.)

(Filed 11 June, 1952.)

Habeas Corpus § 4: Courts § 5—

A Superior Court Judge has no jurisdiction to act upon a petition based upon tbe same facts upon which another Superior Court Judge has previously denied a motion for writ of *habeas corpus.*

PbtitioN for *certiorari*by Wayland White, Jr., to review writs of *habeas corpus*denied by *Williams, J.,*in Chowan County Superior Court, April Term, 1952, and *Carr, J.,*in Wake County Superior Court, April Term, 1952.

Pee Cueiam.

A Superior Court Judge has no jurisdiction to act upon a petition based upon the same facts upon which another Superior Court Judge has previously denied a motion for writ of *habeas corpus.*

Petition denied.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of CEO and CFO 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 on Form 10-Q of BlackRock, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Laurence D. Fink, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Paul L. Audet, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby 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/ Laurence D. Fink
|Name:                |  | Laurence D. Fink       
|Title:               |  | Chief Executive Officer
|Date:                |  | May 9, 2005            
|                    
|/s/ Paul L. Audet   
|Name:                |  | Paul L. Audet          
|Title:               |  | Chief Financial Officer
|Date:                |  | May 9, 2005
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-32213) pertaining to the 1988 Restricted Stock Plan and the
1991 Directors' Stock Option Plan of Matrix Pharmaceutical, Inc., of our report
dated January 21, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
Matrix Pharmaceutical, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended December 31, 2000.

                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Palo Alto, California
March 14, 2001
EXHIBIT 31.1


                                            CERTIFICATIONS

     I, Ronald S. Saks, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed  this  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of LMI  Aerospace,
Inc.;

     2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

     3. Based on my knowledge,  the financial  statements,  and other  financial
information included in this 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 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) and 15d-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 report is being prepared;

     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; and

     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over  financial  reporting  that occurred  during the  registrant's  most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's  fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has  materially  affected,  or is  reasonably  likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

     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 functions):

     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.



Date: May 17, 2004               /s/ Ronald S. Saks
                                ------------------------------------------------
                                 Ronald S. Saks
                                 Chief Executive Officer and President
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10867-10868]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4801]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[ID-030-05-1430-01; IDI-31091]


Intent To Prepare a Plan Amendment to the Medicine Lodge Resource 
Management Plan (RMP); Proposed Sale of Public Land in Jefferson 
County, ID

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare a Plan Amendment to the Medicine 
Lodge Resource Management Plan (RMP); Proposed Sale of Public Land in 
Jefferson County, Idaho.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 43 CFR part 1600, the Idaho Falls office of the 
Bureau of Land Management proposes to amend the Medicine Lodge RMP to 
identify a portion of the following described public land as suitable 
for disposal. The land, located in Jefferson County, Idaho, will be 
examined for possible disposal by direct sale to the City of Mud Lake.

Boise Meridian, Idaho

T. 6 N., R. 34 E., BM
    Sec. 18, lot 10, NE\1/4\.

    The land being considered for sale is approximately 40 to 50 
acres. A Cadastral survey would be required to determine the exact 
acreage and legal description.

DATES: Comments concerning the plan amendment must be received no later 
March 30, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments concerning the plan amendment may be sent 
to the BLM Associate District Manager, 940 Lincoln Road, Idaho Falls, 
ID 83401.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Additional information may be obtained by contacting Bruce Bash, Realty 
Specialist, at the above address, or by calling 208-524-7521.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The amendment would change the land 
designation, of about 40-50 acres, from retention status to transfer 
status. The following resources would be considered in preparation of 
the [[Page 10868]] amendment: lands, wildlife, range, minerals, 
cultural resources, watershed/soils, threatened/endangered species, and 
hazardous materials. Staff members representing each resource will be 
consulted during preparation of the environmental document.
    The primary issue to be addressed is the change in land designation 
from retention to transfer status. The amendment is not expected to be 
controversial as the City of Mud Lake currently holds an airport lease 
on the same land. No public meetings are scheduled; however, written 
comments may be submitted after each of two public notices.
    Prepared documents will be available at the BLM Idaho Falls office. 
Office hours are 7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
holidays.

    Dated: February 16, 1995.
Gary L. Bliss,
Associate District Manager.
[FR Doc. 95-4801 Filed 2-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GG-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

October 18, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2065

Ram Electronics:

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
---

Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER


PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002




I, John
E. Bourgoin, certify, that to my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of MIPS Technologies, Inc. for the three months
ended September 30, 2008 (the “Form 10-Q”), to which
this certificate is an exhibit fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and that information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of MIPS
Technologies, Inc. for the three month period covered by the
Form 10-Q.




Date: November
      7, 2008
            By:
            /s/ JOHN E.
      BOURGOIN
              John E.
      Bourgoin
              President and Chief Executive
      Officer,
              MIPS Technologies,
      Inc.


































A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided by MIPS Technologies and will be retained by
it and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2122

Reelcraft Industries:

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,

Stephen P. Vaughn