alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1996, AND THE
RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1996, AND THE NOTES THERETO, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         131,101
<SECURITIES>                                   109,244
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,092
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      7,544
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               271,981
<PP&E>                                          30,276
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,776
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 504,670
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           52,117
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       525,350
<OTHER-SE>                                    (78,992)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   443,577
<SALES>                                        104,119
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               104,119
<CGS>                                           21,301
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   82,472
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   677
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 27,867
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,539
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             24,328
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    24,328
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .59


</TABLE>
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-2018-0025-2322

Primex Family of Companies:

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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2740

Faurecia US Holdings:

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/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.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 the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

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
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Immunity and Disease Prevention Research: Davis, CA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Laboratories
                        Stephensen Group
                                    Kable Group
                                    Lemay GroupSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Davis, California Western Human Nutrition Research Center Immunity and Disease Prevention Research Research





- ARS National Programs
- Search for a scientific manuscript
- Search for a research project
- ARS Software
- Programs and Projects
- Collaborations
- Subjects of Investigation
- Publications

Research Projects Subjects of Investigation at this LocationEach ARS research project has related subjects of investigation.  Listed below are the subjects of investigation currently conducted at this location.
Clicking on a subject of investigation will list the research projects within that  subject of investigation.Subjects of Investigation
                            Food (not readily associated with specific plant and animal products)
                                Individuals (as workers, consumers, members of society)
                                Peanut


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 46 (Thursday, March 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 12913]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5699]



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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Montana Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of 
the Montana Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene on 
Monday, April 3, 1995, from 1:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the Sheraton 
Billings Hotel, 27 North 27th Street, Billings, Montana 59101. The 
purpose of the meeting is to update Committee members on the status of 
the project proposal and make plans for a future factfinding meeting.
    Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation 
to the Committee, should contact Committee Chairperson Donald D. 
Dupuis, 406-675-2770, or Ki-Taek Chun, Acting Director of the Rocky 
Mountain Regional Office, 303-866-1040 (TDD 303-866-1049). Hearing-
impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services 
of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at 
least five (5) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission.

     Dated at Washington, DC, February 28, 1995.
Carol-Lee Hurley,
Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 95-5699 Filed 3-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-3884

___________________________

John Burns

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Grisham Law Firm; Audrianna Grisham, P.A.

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

Fort Roots Federal Credit Union; John and Jane Does, 1-100

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock

____________

 Submitted: August 29, 2016

 Filed: September 1, 2016 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
John Burns appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to 1

Audrianna Grisham, P.A. (Grisham), in his action alleging Grishamviolated the Fair

2

Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p, by making

misrepresentations while pursuing a state-court debt-collection proceeding against

Burns, and by attempting to collect attorney’s fees not authorized by the agreement

creating the debt.3

We conclude that summary judgment was properly granted. See Richmond v.

Higgins, 435 F.3d 825, 828 (8th Cir. 2006) (grant of summary judgment reviewed de

novo). Burns did not demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to whether

Grisham’s statements during the state-court proceedings were misleading or

deceptive. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692e (prohibiting false, deceptive or misleading

representations in connection with the collection of any debt); cf. Janson v.

Katharyn B. Davis, LLC, 806 F.3d 435, 437 (8th Cir. 2015) (affirming dismissal of

FDCPA claim where plaintiff did not allege that defendant attorneys swore to facts

they knew to be false). On appeal, Burns does not challenge the district court’s

determination that the attorney’s fees Grisham sought to collect were permitted by

Arkansas law. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692f (prohibiting debt collector from collecting or

attempting to collect any amount not expressly authorized by agreement creating debt

or permitted by law); Hageman v. Barton, 817 F.3d 611, 619 (8th Cir. 2016) (to

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the

1

Eastern District of Arkansas.

Burns named “Grisham Law Firm” as an additional defendant, but it was 2

clarified during the proceedings that this entity does not exist.

Burns does not challenge on appeal the disposition of his state-law claims. 3

See Griffith v. City of Des Moines, 387 F.3d 733, 739 (8th Cir. 2004) (claims not

briefed on appeal are abandoned).

-2-
succeed on claimunder § 1692f, plaintiff must establish that amounts sought were not

authorized by law or by contract).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

-3-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                        				1,000
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   					 0
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              				1,000
<PP&E>                                                0
<DEPRECIATION>                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               					1,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           					 0
<BONDS>                                               0
<COMMON>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                       1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   								 0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 					1,000
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              							 0
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             								 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 					 0
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   0
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                    					 0
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1
 
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Gerard H. SweeneyGerard H. SweeneyPresident and Chief Executive Officer
Date: May 8, 2009 
 *
    
    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Brandywine Realty Trust and will be retained by Brandywine Realty Trust and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### December 21, 2005
Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
TERRY DON MYERS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. MIKE ADDISON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. No. 04-6381 (D.C. No. CIV-04-913-L) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER
Before EBEL , McKAYand HENRY , Circuit Judges. Terry Myers, an Oklahoma state prisoner serving thr ee consecutive 99-year sentences, seeks a certificate of appealability (“C OA”) following the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. He also seeks to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Mr. Myers’s underlying claim is that the Oklahoma state courts have denied his constitutional due pro cess and equal protection rights by denying his request for free copies of his trial transcripts. In his habeas petition, he does not seek a release from custody, but rather an order that the transcripts be provided to him free of cost. The d istrict court assigned the case to a magistrate judge, who provided a thorough analysi s of Mr. Myers’s claims and recommended that his petition be denied.- 2 -

To obtain a COA, a petitioner must make “a substant ial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 225 3(c)(2). For the reasons given in the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation , we conclude that Mr. Myers cannot make such a showing. We therefore DEN Y his request for a COA and DISMISS this appeal. We also DENY his request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel Circuit Judge
[No. 24765.

*En Banc.*

July 23, 1934.]

#### Roy H. Reed, *Respondent,*v. The Department of Labor and Industries, *Appellant.*

*The Attorney General*and *Browder Browm, Assistant,*for appellant.

O. *R. Schumann*and *Don M. Tunstall,*for respondent.

On Rehearing.

Per Curiam.

— This cause having been argued to a Department of the court on October 30, 1933, and the opinion of the trial court having been affirmed *(ante*p. 33, 27 P. (2d) 1073), and the cause having been thereafter assigned for rehearing *En Banc,*and having been argued to the court sitting *En Banc*on June 4, 1934, and the court having considered the questions presented and the opinion of the Department of this court filed in this cause above referred to, it is ordered that the words,

> “and the benefit of the doubt should be given the claimant under the industrial insurance law,”

commencing in the fourth line of the last paragraph of the opinion, be and the same are hereby deleted from the opinion.

A majority of the court adheres to the Departmental opinion as so amended.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-11462

Tower Manufacturing 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 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
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7376** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. DERRICK SIMMONS , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Spartanburg
. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 7:07

- cr - 00294

- HMH

- 12; 7:14

- cv - 02535

- HMH )

Submitted : February 6, 2015 Decided: February 10, 2015

Before WYNN and DIAZ , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Derrick Simmons, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Burke Moorman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Derrick Simmons seeks to appeal the district court ’ s orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2012)
. A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merit s, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional ri ght. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Simmons has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-1534

Illinois Tool Works: 

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.

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