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

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2413

Amistco Separation Products dba AMACS:

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
#### JOHN C. CROOKS v. DR. J. F. JONAS.

(Filed 10 May, 1933.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Sinclair, J.,*at September Term, 1932, of Burke.

Affirmed.

This is an action to recover damages sustained by plaintiff and resulting from the illness and death of his wife, caused, as alleged in the complaint, by the negligence of the defendant, a physician, who attended her, at the request of the plaintiff, at and subsequent to the birth of a child.

From judgment dismissing the action, as of nonsuit, at the close of the evidence, the plaintiff appealed to -the Supreme Court.

*798
      *George W. Phillips and Edward H. McMahan for plaintiff.*

*J. Laurence Jones, Mull & Patton, S. J. Ervin, W. T. Morgan and S. J. Ervin, Jr., for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff’s wife, Ethel Crooks, gave birth to a child at his home in Burke County, North Carolina, about nine miles from the town of Marion, N. C., on 20 November, 1930. On 30 November, 1930, she was removed by the plaintiff from his home to a hospital in the town of Morganton, N. C., for medical treatment. She died at the hospital on 8 December, 1930. Her death was caused by an infection following the birth of her child, resulting in a high fever, which was first observed on 29 November, 1930. The defendant, a physician, residing at Marion, at the request of the plaintiff, attended her during her confinement, and visited her, professionally, on or about 29 November, 1930, when he was informed by plaintiff that he had procured another physician to care for his wife. The plaintiff sustained damages resulting from the illness and death of his wife.

It is alleged in the complaint that the defendant was negligent (1) in that he failed to exercise proper care of plaintiff’s wife during her confinement; and (2) in that he failed to visit her after her confinement, and to give her proper treatment to prevent infection; and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the damages sustained by the plaintiff.

The facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to constitute a cause of action *(Bailey v. Long,*172 N. C., 661, 90 S. E., 809), but in the absence of evidence at the trial tending to sustain these allegations, there was no error in the judgment dismissing the action. *Smith v. McClung,*201 N. C., 648, 161 S. E., 91; *Smith v. Wharton,*199 N. C., 246, 154 S. E., 12. For that reason, the judgment is

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Eric Logan, certify that:
1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Adams Golf, 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 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 quarterly report is being prepared;
       b)    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this
quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of
the end of the period covered by this quarterly 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 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 the 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 controls over financial reporting.

|Date:  November 7, 2006 |  | By:/S/ ERIC LOGAN            
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|                        |  | Eric Logan                   
|                        |  | Chief Financial Officer      
|                        |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
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-2018-0025-3634

Omega Environmental Technologies, 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
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-2018-0025-2856

Speck Pumps-Pool Products, Inc: 

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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6800

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROBERTO ANTOINE DARDEN, a/k/a Dizz-e, a/k/a Javon,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (4:11-cr-00052-AWA-LRL-1; 

4:14-cv-00136-AWA)

Submitted: December 20, 2019 Decided: January 30, 2020

Before DIAZ, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roberto Antoine Darden, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Roberto Antoine Darden seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, 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 right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Darden has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Darden’s 

motion for counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 47 (Friday, March 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 13140]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5891]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket Nos. RP95-93-001 and RP91-212-014]


Stingray Pipeline Co.; Notice of Compliance Filing

March 6, 1995.
    Take notice that on March 1, 1995, Stingray Pipeline Company 
(Stingray), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third 
Revised Volume No. 1, the below listed tariff sheets to be effective 
February 15, 1995:

Third Revised Sheet No. 5
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 56
Third Revised Sheet No. 57

    Stingray states that the purpose of the filing is to comply with 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) ``Order Denying 
Request For Extension Of Experimental Program,'' issued February 14, 
1995, 70 FERC Paragraph 61,171 (1995). Stingray was directed to 
eliminate references to its experimental market-based interruptible 
rate program.
    Stingray requested waiver of the Commission's Regulations to the 
extent necessary to permit the above tariff sheets to become effective 
February 15, 1995.
    Stingray states that copies of its filing were served on all 
parties to this proceeding, jurisdictional customers and interested 
state regulatory agencies.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a motion to 
protest with the Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure 18 CFR 385.211. All such protests should be 
filed on or before March 13, 1995. Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Copies of this 
filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public 
inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-5891 filed 3-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
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-2018-0025-3130

CW Bearing USA, Inc:

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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Manuel Mateo, Appellant.

[772 NYS2d 576]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), rendered February 19, 2002, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s unpreserved contention, the Supreme Court’s supplemental charge on circumstantial evidence did not deprive him of a fair trial. The supplemental charge conveyed a correct statement of the law *(see People v Geraci,*85 NY2d 359, 369 [1995]; *People v Ford,*66 NY2d 428, 442 [1985]; *People v Benzinger,*36 NY2d 29, 32 [1974]; *People v Jackson,*261 AD2d 636, 637 [1999]). Moreover, the charge, read in its entirety, was fair, balanced, and not prejudicial to the defendant *(see People v Mitchell,*129 AD2d 589, 590 [1987]; *cf. People v Brabham,*77 AD2d 626 [1980]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive, nor was it improperly based on crimes for which the defendant was acquitted *(see People v Matthews,*1 AD3d 530 [2003]; *People v Ferere,*294 AD2d 596, 597 [2002]; *People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]; *cf. People v Innis,*288 AD2d 236 [2001]; *People v Santiago,*277 AD2d 258, 259 [2000]). Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.
Amd. 1 to the Aleris Corp. 2010 Equity Incentive Plan Stock Option Agmt.



 Exhibit 10.11.1 

AMENDMENT 1 TO THE 
 STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT 
  

			
	 TO:
	  	Kenneth Alan Dick
		
	 FROM:
	  	Aleris Corporation
		
	 Re:
	  	Amendment 1 to Option Award Agreement
		
	 Date
	  	April 28, 2011

 On February 2, 2011, you were granted an Option to purchase shares of common stock of Aleris Corporation, fka Aleris
Holding Company (the “Company”) and issued an Award Agreement, which you subsequently signed and accepted. The Option was granted under the Company’s 2010 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), a copy of which was
attached to the Award Agreement. We are amending your Award Agreement by issuing this Amendment 1 in order to reflect adjustments made by a special committee of the Board of Directors of the Company, pursuant to the terms of the Plan, in light of
the $9.60 cash dividend that the Company issued on February 28, 2011 to stockholders of record of the Company’s common stock as of February 17, 2011. Your Option remains subject in all respects to the terms and conditions of the Plan
and the Award Agreement, as amended by this Amendment 1. 
  

	 	A.	Exhibit A to the Stock Option Agreement is amended to read as follows: 

  

									
	 	  	Number of Shares	 	  	Exercise Price	 
	 Stock Option
	  	 	18,528	  	  	$	40.81	  

  

	 	B.	For the avoidance of doubt, the adjusted number of shares underlying your Stock Options, as set forth in the Exhibit, as amended above, will apply to those Stock
Options that are vested and unvested as of the date of this Amendment. 

  

	 	C.	This Amendment 1 is being made in accordance with the Adjustment of Shares and Amendment provisions of the Plan. 


 

	 	D.	With the exception of the modifications set forth in this Amendment 1, all other provisions of the Award Agreement shall remain unchanged, and in full force and effect.


  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	/s/ Christopher R. Clegg
	Christopher R. Clegg
	Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary

  
 8167887.1
#### JOHN D. PUGH v. HERMAN LEO SMITH

(Filed 27 November, 1957)

Automobiles § 46: Negligence § 20—

An instruction to the effect that the jury must find that defendant’s negligence was “the” instead of “a” proximate cause of the accident in order to answer the issue of negligence in the affirmative is prejudicial.

*265Appeal by plaintiff from *Crissman, J.,*May, 1957 Term, For-syth Superior Court.

Civil action for personal injury to the plaintiff, a pedestrian, alleged to have been caused by the defendant’s negligent operation of his automobile at a street crossing in a business district of Winston-Salem. The defendant denied negligence on his part and pleaded contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

Each party introduced evidence tending to support his contentions. The defendant’s motions for nonsuit were overruled. Issues of negligence and contributory negligence were submitted. The jury answered the issue of negligence in favor of the defendant. From the judgment dismissing the action, the plaintiff appealed.

*Fred M. Parrish, Jr., McKeithen, Graves & Robinson, By: Norwood Robinson for plaintiff appellant.*

*Ratcliff, Vaughn, Hudson, Ferrell & Carter, By: Ralph M. Stockton, Jr., for defendant appellee.*

Higgins, J.

Throughout the charge the court instructed the jury that in order to prevail on the first issue (defendant’s negligence) the plaintiff must establish by the greater weight of the evidence that the defendant was negligent and that his negligence was *the*proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury. The charge places too great a burden upon the plaintiff. A similar error is treated at length in the case of *Price v. Gray,*246 N.C. 162, 97 S.E. 2d 844.

When the pleadings and the evidence involve the negligence of a person other than the defendant, it is only necessary for the plaintiff to show the defendant’s negligence was *one*of the proximate causes of the injury. In this case the negligence of both parties is involved. If either can prove by the greater weight of the evidence that the other’s negligence was *one*of the proximate causes of the injury, he is entitled to have the appropriate issue answered in his favor. Each party is entitled to an equal chance before the jury. Each should carry an equal burden. On the authority of *Price v. Gray, supra,*and the cases there cited this case is remanded to the Superior Court of Forsyth County for a

New trial.
# ASC Summary

# 8483509040