alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2157

Cedar Electronics 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
*******EXHIBIT 23*******

 

 

 

Independent Auditor’s Consent 

 

The Board of Directors 

Diametrics Medical, Inc. 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Nos. 333-98341, 333-69094, 333-63689, 333-63687, 333-51951, 333-33257,333-24169, 333-24167, 333-24079 and 33-83572) on Forms S-3 and S-8 of Diametrics Medical, Inc., of our reports dated January 24, 2003, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Diametrics Medical, Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31,2002 and 2001, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity and comprehensive loss, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2002 and the related schedule, which reportsappear in the December 31, 2002 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Diametrics Medical, Inc. 

 

Our report covering the December 31, 2002 consolidated financial statements, contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company has negative working capital, recurring losses and negativecash flows that raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty. 

 

 

 

/s/     KPMG LLP 

 

Minneapolis, Minnesota 

March 31, 2003
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-1795

Northern Tool & Equipment:

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

General Counsel
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-2018-0025-10491

CMI Energy, 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.

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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 51 (Thursday, March 16, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14309-14310]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6492]



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

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD


Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad Retirement Board has submitted the 
following proposal(s) for the collection of information to the Office 
of Management and Budget for review and approval.

SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL(S):

(1) Collection title: Withholding Certificate for Railroad Retirement 
Monthly Annuity Payments
(2) Form(s) submitted: RRB W-4P
(3) OMB Number: 3220-0149
(4) Expiration date of current OMB clearance: April 30, 1995
(5) Type of request: Revision of a currently approved collection
(6) Respondents: Individuals or households
(7) Estimated annual number of respondents: 31,000
(8) Total annual responses: 31,000
(9) Total annual reporting hours: 1
(10) Collection description: Under Public Law 98-76 railroad retirement 
beneficiaries' Tier 2, dual vested and supplemental benefits are 
subject to income tax under private pension rules. Under Public Law 99-
514, the non-social security equivalent benefit portion of Tier 1 is 
also taxable under private pension rules. The collection obtains the 
information needed by the Railroad Retirement Board to implement the 
income tax withholding provisions.

[[Page 14310]] ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR COMMENTS: Copies of the form 
and supporting documents can be obtained from Chuck Mierzwa, the agency 
clearance officer (312-751-3363). Comments regarding the information 
collection should be addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement 
Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-2092 and the OMB 
reviewer, Laura Oliven (202-395-7316), Office of Management and Budget, 
Room 10230, New Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20503.
Chuck Mierzwa,
Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-6492 Filed 3-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7905-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 52 (Friday, March 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14419-14420]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6552]



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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Michigan 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 Michigan Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene from 
1:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 6, 1995, at the Westin 
Hotel, Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan 48243. The purpose of the 
meeting is to discuss current issues and plan future activities.
    Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation 
to the Committee, should contact Committee Chairperson Janice G. 
Frazier at 313-259-8180, or Constance M. Davis, Director of the 
Midwestern Regional Office, 312-353-8311 (TDD [[Page 14420]] 312-353-
8326). 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, March 7, 1995.
Carol-Lee Hurley,
Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 95-6552 Filed 3-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 January 25, 2019

Order 

Clerk

January 25, 2019

158910(49)

FREDERICK R. WHEELER and MARILYN

WHEELER,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

SC: 158910

v COA: 338704

Wayne CC: 15-009025-NZ

CITY OF LIVONIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiffs-appellees to extend the 

time for filing their answer is GRANTED. The answer will be accepted as timely filed if 

submitted on or before March 1, 2019.
EXHIBIT 21.1


                                  SUBSIDIARIES


Name                                                 State of Incorporation
----                                                 ----------------------

Children's Radio of Los Angeles, Inc.                       Minnesota
Children's Satellite Network, Inc.                          Minnesota
Children's Radio of New York, Inc.                          New Jersey
Children's Radio of Minneapolis, Inc.                       Minnesota
Children's Radio of Golden Valley, Inc.                     Minnesota
Children's Radio of Dallas, Inc.                            Minnesota
Children's Radio of Houston, Inc.                           Minnesota
Children's Radio of Kansas City, Inc.                       Minnesota
Children's Radio of Milwaukee, Inc.                         Minnesota
Children's Radio of Denver, Inc.                            Minnesota
Children's Radio of Detroit, Inc.                           Minnesota
Children's Radio of Philadelphia, Inc.                      Minnesota
Children's Radio of Chicago, Inc.                           Minnesota
Children's Radio of Phoenix, Inc.                           Minnesota
Children's Radio of Tulsa, Inc.                             Minnesota
KAHZ-AM, Inc.                                               Minnesota
KCNW-AM, Inc.                                               Minnesota
KIDR-AM, Inc.                                               Minnesota
KKYD-AM, Inc.                                               Minnesota
KMUS-AM, Inc.                                               Minnesota
KPLS-AM, Inc.                                               Minnesota
KTEK-AM, Inc.                                               Minnesota
KYCR-AM, Inc.                                               Minnesota
WAUR-AM, Inc.                                               Minnesota
WCAR-AM, Inc.                                               Minnesota
WJDM-AM, Inc.                                               Minnesota
WPWA-AM, Inc.                                               Minnesota
WWTC-AM, Inc.                                               Minnesota
WZER-AM, Inc.                                               Minnesota
Populuxe Pictures, Inc.                                     Minnesota
Buffalo Rome, Inc.                                          Minnesota
Chelsea Acquisition, Inc.                                   Minnesota
Chelsea Pictures, Inc.                                      Massachusetts
#### F. B. INGLE v. GAY GREEN.

(Filed 12 December, 1928.)

Contracts — Construction and Operation — Conditions.

Where the -plaintiff alleges a contract for the division of profits to he derived from the sale of certain real estate provided a satisfactory .sale was made within twelve months from the date of the contract, and alleges that he produced purchasers for the iand, but that none of the offers was satisfactory to the defendant, and there is no allegation of fraud or arbitrary -refusal to *sellHeld,,*evidence sustaining these contentions was properly nonsuited.

*382Appeal by plaintiff from *McElroy, J.,*at March Term, 1928, of HeNderson.

Civil action to recover damages for an alleged breach of the following contract:

“Asheville, N. 0., 14 April, 1925.

“This form of contract by and between Gay Green, party of the first part, and E. B. Ingle, party of the second part. The party of the first part purchased the T. L. Johnson farm containing 150 acres for $16,000.00, through the party of the second part with- the understanding that both parties hereto are to share all profits equally above the purchase price of $16,000.00, and each party are to bear equally in all expense of handling and selling said farm. Provided a satisfactory sale can be made within twelve months from date. „ „

„ Gat Geeen,

F. B. INGLE.”

The proviso, or last sentence, in this contract was inserted by the defendant in his own handwriting. It is conceded that no sale was made within the life of the contract, though plaintiff alleges he produced purchasers ready, able and willing to buy before the expiration of the twelve month’s period. But none of the offers was satisfactory to the defendant. There is no allegation that defendant acted fraudulently or arbitrarily in refusing to sell.

*Arledge, Taylor & Crowell for plaintiff.*

*Alfred S. Barnard and Shipman & Arledge for defendant.*

Pee Cueiam.

The record fails to disclose any ground upon which plaintiff is entitled to recover against the defendant in the present action.

The judgment of nonsuit was properly entered.

Affirmed.
Form of Amd 1 to the Aleris Corp 2010 Equity Incentive Plan Director Stock Agmt



 Exhibit 10.22.1 

FORM OF 

AMENDMENT 1 TO THE 
 STOCK OPTION AWARD AGREEMENT 
  

			
	 TO:
	  	
		
	 FROM:
	  	Aleris Corporation
		
	 RE:
	  	Amendment 1 to Option Award Agreement
		
	 DATE:
	  	April 28, 2011

 On November 1, 2010 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.	Section 1(c) of the Award Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 


Number of Shares and Exercise Price per Share: 
  

									
	 	  	Number of Shares	 	  	Exercise Price	 
	 The Option
	  	 	14,822	  	  	$	34.17	  

  

	 	B.	For the avoidance of doubt, the adjusted number of shares underlying your Options, as set forth in section 1(c), will apply to those 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,
	
	  
	Christopher R. Clegg
	Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary

  
 8167878.1
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-2018-0025-2348

US Industrial Sales LLC:

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

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2791

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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7697 

JULIO HENRI BONDI, a/k/a Danny Campen,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES M. CONDON,

Attorney General of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (CA01-2340)

Submitted: March 24, 2005 Decided: March 29, 2005

Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Julio Henri Bondi, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief

Deputy Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Julio Henri Bondi, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the

magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by

the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bondi

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED