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

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-2682

HP 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 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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3641

ECM Industries LLC: 

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

_5-30-2019.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 15, 2022. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, March 15, 2022 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A22A0889. ERMA B. ROBINSON v. CAREY HALL.
The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this Court and with Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13. On February 23, 2022, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors and a brief no later than March 07, 2022. As of the date of this order, the appellant's enumeration of errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed abandoned and is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).
#### J. L. CROUSE v. GEORGE C. YORK and GEORGE C. YORK v. J. L. CROUSE.

(Filed 17 November, 1926.)

Appeal by George 0. York from *Shaw, J.,*at September Term, 1926, of Guileord. Affirmed.

*Hobgood & Alderman and T. J. Hill for appellant.*

*Frazier & Frazier for appellee.*

Per Curiam.

On 28 May, 1926, J. L. Crouse brought suit against George C. York, and on 1 June, 1926, George C. York brought suit against J. L. Crouse. In the first case the defendant York moved to dismiss the action, and his motion was denied; in the second case the defendant Crouse made a motion to dismiss York’s action against him, and the motion was allowed. In each instance York excepted and appealed.

His Honor assigned as his reason for dismissing York’s action against Crouse that it was begun after the first action was instituted, and that the two suits are between the same parties and involve the same subject-matter, and that the entire controversy can be determined in the action which was first instituted. *We*concur in the conclusion announced in each case.

Affirmed.
#### STATE v. JESSIE BELL KILGORE.

(Filed 7 June, 1957.)

Criminal Law § 6a—

The defense of entrapment is not presented upon evidence tending to show merely than an officer of the law, not in uniform and not informing defendant that he was an officer, purchased intoxicating liquor from defendant for the purpose of obtaining evidence.

Appeal by defendant from *Williams, J.,*December 1956 Special Term of Robeson.

Defendant was tried on two bills of indictment, each of which contained two counts. The first bill charged possession for the purpose of sale of intoxicating liquor and the sale of intoxicating liquor on 20 September 1956. The second bill contained similar charges with respect to possession and sale on 4 October 1956. The jury found defendant guilty on each count in the first bill and not guilty of the charges in the second bill.

The only evidence offered was the testimony of James E. King and two bottles of beer which he testified he purchased from defendant. King, an employee of the Alcohol & Tobacco Tax Division of the TJ. S. *456Treasury Department, testified he, in company with another person, went to the home of defendant on 20 September 1956 and knocked on her door. She came to the door and asked what they wanted. The witness replied “some beer.” She unlocked the door and led them to her kitchen where she sold him two quarts of Miller’s High Life beer for two dollars which she put in a paper sack and he carried away with him. The witness was not in uniform nor did he have any badge on when he went to defendant’s home. He did not inform the defendant that he was an officer, or that he was seeking evidence to convict defendant.

Judgment of imprisonment for eight months was entered on the verdict. Defendant appealed.

*Attorney-General Patton and Assistant Attorney-General Love for the State.*

*Britt, Campbell & Britt for defendant appellant.*

PeR CuRiam.

Defendant claims entrapment as her defense. There is no evidence of entrapment. *S. v. Burnette,*242 N.C. 164, 87 S.E. 2d 191. No defense can, on this record, be predicated thereon. Hence, if error exists in the charge with respect to defendant’s claim of entrapment, the asserted error is not prejudicial.

The charge with respect to the failure of the defendant to testify substantially conforms to the statute. *S. v. Horne,*209 N.C. 725, 184 S.E. 470.

No error.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 13, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3800

Knowles 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 the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests and 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
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Eye Institute Special Emphasis Panel; NEI Research Project Grant Applications.                     

*Date:*                         March 10, 2016.                    

*Time:*                         12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Brian Hoshaw, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer,  National Eye Institute,  National Institutes of Health, Division of Extramural Research,  5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 1300, Rockville, MD 20892, 301-451-2020,                         *hoshawb@mail.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.867, Vision Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: February 11, 2016.

Natasha M. Copeland,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2016-03235 Filed 2-17-16; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Ex-99.1 a)

                        REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



To the Board of Directors and Shareholder
of Bank of America, N.A.


We have examined management's assertion about compliance by BA Mortgage, LLC and
the Mortgage division of Bank of America, N.A. (collectively, the "Company"),
which together comprise an operating division of Bank of America, N.A., with the
minimum servicing standards (the "Standards") identified in the Mortgage Bankers
Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers
("USAF") as of and for the year ended December 31, 2001 included in the
accompanying management assertion (see Exhibit I). Management is responsible for
the Company's compliance with the Standards. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance based on our
examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the
Standards and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the
circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for
our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the
Company's compliance with the Standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned Standards as of and for the year ended December 31, 2001 is
fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ PriceWaterHouseCoopers LLC

March 15, 2002

Ex-99.1 b)

INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT


To Cendant Mortgage Corporation:

We have examined management's assertion about Cendant Mortgage Corporation's
compliance with the minimum servicing standards identified in the Mortgage
Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage
Bankers (USAP) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2001 included in the
accompanying management assertion. Management is responsible for Cendant
Mortgage Corporation's compliance with those minimum servicing standards. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the
entity's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about Cendant Mortgage


<PAGE>

Corporation's compliance with the minimum servicing standards and performing
such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We
believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our
examination does not provide a legal determination on Cendant Mortgage
Corporation's compliance with the minimum servicing standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that Cendant Mortgage Corporation
complied with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the
year ended December 31, 2001 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche

February 15, 2002
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court No. DA 20

- 0065

ANIMALS OF MONTANA, INC., TROY HYDE,

PERMIT HOLDER,

Petitioner and Appellant

,

v.

STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF

FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PARKS,

Respondent and Appellee

.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is

given an extension of time until November 9 , 20 20 to prepare, file and serve the

Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 27 2020

10/27/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0065
#### STATE v. BENNIE GRIFFIN.

(Filed 6 April, 1932.)

Criminal Law L e — No appeal will lie from order of trial court refusing motion for new trial for newly discovered evidence.

- A motion for a new trial for newly discovered evidence, made at the next ■ succeeding term of criminal court after affirmance of the former conviction by the Supreme Court, is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, and his order refusing to grant the motion is not reviewable, and an appeal therefrom will be dismissed. ■

Appeal by defendant from *Daniels, J.,*at December Term, 1931, of ORANGE.

Dismissed.

The defendant in this action was tried at June Term, 1931, of the Superior Court of Orange County, on an indictment of murder. He was convicted of murder in the first degree, and appealed from the judgment on such conviction to the Supreme Court, assigning errors at the trial. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court at its Fall Term, 1931. The assignments of error were not sustained. The judgment was affirmed. *S, v. Griffin,*201 N. C., 541.

At the December Term, 1931, of the Superior Court of Orange County, which was the first term of said court held after the affirmance by the Supreme Court of the judgment at June Term, 1931, the defendant moved for a new trial in said court for newly discovered evidence.

The motion was heard *(S. v. Casey,*201 N. C., 620) and denied. From the order denying his motion, the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.

*518
      *Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Seawell for the State.*

*M. Hugh Thompson and O. J. Gates for defendant.*

CoNNOR, J.

Tbe order denying tbe motion of tbe defendant for a new trial on tbe ground of newly discovered evidence, beard in tbe Superior Court of Orange County at tbe term next succeeding tbe affirmance by tbis Court of tbe judgment of said Court at tbe trial term, is not subject to review on appeal to tbis Court. Tbis appeal is, therefore, dismissed. *S. v. Cox, ante, 378.*Tbe order was made by tbe judge of tbe Superior Court in tbe exercise of bis judicial discretion. *S. v. Oasey,*201 N. C., 620. It involves no matter of law or legal inference. It is conclusive. *Goodman v. Goodman,*201 N. C., 808, *S. v. Branner,*149 N. C., 559.

Dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 4, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 480]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-33]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-30,198; TA-W-30,198A]


KCA Apparel, and Staff One, Lawton, OK; Amended Certification 
Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 19974 (19 USC 
2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to 
Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on September 16, 1994, 
applicable to all workers of KCS Apparel in Lawton, Oklahoma. The 
certification notice was published in the Federal Register on October 
4, 1994 (59 FR 50629).
    At the request of the State Agency, the Department is amending the 
certification to include leased employees from Staff One who were 
employed exclusively at KCA apparel in the production of ladies' pants.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers at KCA Apparel, Lawton, Oklahoma including leased workers who 
were affected by increased imports of ladies' pants.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-30,198 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    ``All workers of KCA Apparel, Lawton, Oklahoma and leased 
workers from Staff One, Lawton, Oklahoma engaged in employment 
related to the production of ladies' pants who became totally or 
partially separated from employment on or after July 23, 1993 are 
eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the 
Trade Act of 1974.''

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 16th day of December 1994.
Victor J. Trunzo,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-33 Filed 1-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3080

Mabuchi Motor America Corp:

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

_05.09.19.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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter

Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 04-2112

PETER D. PREVETT,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT,

Defendant, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

[Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr., U.S. District Judge]

Before

 Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges,

and Stahl, Senior Circuit Judge.

Peter D. Prevett on brief pro se.

Kelly A. Ayotte, Attorney General, and Daniel J. Mullen,

Associate Attorney General, on brief for appellee.

February 15, 2005
-2-

Per Curiam. In this appeal, pro se appellant Peter

Prevett appeals from a district court judgment dismissing his

suit, which challenged, on equal protection grounds, the facial

validity of a state bar admission rule, N.H. Sup. Ct. R.

42(10)(a)(ii), and the state supreme court's reliance on the

rule to deny his application for admission to the bar. In an

order dated May 26, 2004, the district court dismissed the

challenge to the state court's denial of the appellant's bar

application based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. In an order

dated August 4, 2004, the court rejected the challenge to the

facial validity of the rule, finding that there was no equal

protection violation because the rule is rationally related to

a legitimate state interest. After careful review of the

record and the appellate filings, we affirm, essentially for

the reasons given by the district court in its thoughtful

decisions.

Affirmed.