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

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-11463

Great Scott Gadgets:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

October 26, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-1147

Aviation Communication & Surveillance Systems, 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

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2465

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 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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 46 (Thursday, March 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 12945]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5787]



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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Report No. 2060]


Petition for Reconsideration of Actions in Rulemaking Proceedings

March 6, 1995.
    Petition for reconsideration have been filed in the Commission 
rulemaking proceedings listed in this Public Notice and published 
pursuant to 47 CFR Section 1.429(e). The full text of this document are 
available for viewing and copying in Room 239, 1919 M Street, NW., 
Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy 
contractor ITS, Inc. (202) 857-3800. Opposition to this petition must 
be filed on or before March 24, 1995. See Section 1.4(b)(1) of the 
Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must be 
filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions has expired.
Subject: Transport Rate Structure and Pricing. (CC Docket No. 91-113)
Number of Petition Filed: 1

    Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-5787 Filed 3-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
#### THE FARMERS BANK OF CLAYTON v. NELLIE HORNE McCULLERS et al.

(Filed 17 March, 1937.)

Appeal and Error §§ 19, 31f—

The pleadings are a necessary part of the record and may not be omitted by consent of the parties, and where the record is inadequate to establish the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and put it in efficient relation and connection with the court below, the appeal will be dismissed. Rule of Practice in the Supreme Court, No. 19, sec. 1.

Appeal by L. T. Rose, agent of plaintiff, from *Cranmer, J.,*at September Term, 1936, of JohNstoN.

Motion by L. T. Rose for allowance out of funds in hands of receiver for services rendered in “receivership had in proceedings supplemental to execution.”

From order directing the receiver to pay out all funds in his hands, and “to complete his liquidation of said estate as early as practicable and file his final report herein,” the movant, “L. T. Rose, agent of the plaintiff bank,” excepts and appeals.

*Parker & Lee for L. T. Pose, appellant.*

*Abell & Shepard for J. L. George and A. A. Corbett, appellees.*

Stacy, C. J.

It is stipulated by counsel “that the original records in the cases are not necessary on the appeal, and are therefore omitted by consent.” This is fatal to the appeal. *Ins. Co. v. Bullard,*207 N. C., *328652, 178 S. E., 113. Compare *Corp. Com. v. Trust Co.,*194 N. C., 239, 139 S. E., 244. It is provided by Rule 19, sec. 1, of the Rules of Practice that “the pleadings on which the case is tried, the issues, and the judgment appealed from shall be a part of the transcript in all cases.” The pleadings are essential in order that we may be advised as to the nature of the action or proceeding. *Waters v. Waters,*199 N. C., 667, 155 S. E., 564.

The record consists of certain judgments, orders, and reports. No written motion or application of appellant appears in the transcript. Indeed, the judgment from which the appeal is taken contains no reference to such motion. The record is too meager “to establish the jurisdiction of this Court and put it in efficient relation and connection with the-court below.” *Walton v. McKesson,*101 N. C., 428, 7 S. E., 566; *Payne v. Brown,*205 N. C., 785, 172 S. E., 348. Failure to send up adequate record has uniformly resulted in dismissal of the appeal. *S. v. Lbr. Co.,*207 N. C., 47, 175 S. E., 713. Judicial knowledge arises only from what properly appears on the record. *Goodman v. Goodman,*208 N. C., 416, 181 S. E., 328; *Ins. Co. v. Bullard, supra.*

On the authorities cited, and others of similar import, the attempted appeal must be dismissed. *Riggan v. Harrison,*203 N. C., 191, 165 S. E., 358; *Waters v. Waters, supra; Pruitt v. Wood,*199 N. C., 788, 156 S. E., 126.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Forms S-3 (No. 333-82496, No. 333-91225, No. 333-91235 and No.
333-17105) and Forms S-8 (No. 33-82410 and No. 333-91259) of our report dated
February 6, 2002, relating to the financial statements of SpatiaLight, Inc.,
which appear in this Amendment No. 2 on Form 10-KSB/A.



                                        /s/ BDO Seidman, LLP

San Francisco, California
April 26, 2002
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.3


[Aurora Letterhead]                                          11432 Lackland Road
                                                             St. Louis, MO 63146
                                                             (314) 801-2300

8/14/02

Gilster Mary Lee
Don Welge
P.O. Box 22
Chester, IL  62233

Dear Don,

As discussed earlier this morning, the following is Aurora's proposal for a
change in our Manufacturing Agreement.

1.   That a "..." per case increase on layer cake and RTS frosting be applied
     beginning with shipments starting the day after Gilster forwards a cost
     master reflecting the change.

2.   Payment terms will be revised to "..." with a wire transfer occurring on
     each Wednesday for invoices reaching "..." days within that calendar week.

3.   A wire transfer on Wednesday of each week will pay invoices that have
     reached "..." days as of the wire transfer date.

4.   On an annualized basis, if Aurora produces at any Gilster Mary Lee facility
     in excess of "..." cases of product, Gilster will reduce the tolling charge
     by "..." per case for all cases produced in excess of the base volume of
     "..." cases. This reduction will be reflected on a revised cost from
     Gilster Mary Lee.

This counter proposal can be implemented with your signature below and upon the
e-mailed transfer of the revised cost master, mentioned above.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to a signed response.



All the Best,

/s/ Doug Sherman
----------------
Doug Sherman



/s/ Don Welge
-------------
Don Welge - Gilster Mary Lee
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-2018-0025-11457

Legrand North & Central America:

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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 75th 

Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

-2.00% -4.34% 0.62% 1.43% -1.39% -2.91%

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Retirement Age

Proposed Provision: Shorten the hiatus in the normal retirement age (start increasing to age 67 for those 

age 62 in 2010, rather than those age 62 in 2017) and then index the normal retirement age (by 1 month 

every 2 years) until the NRA reaches age 70.

Present Law Change From Present Law in Results with this provision

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Percent

Year

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

Cost rates with this provision

Income rates under present law

Income rates with this provision

Cost rates under present law

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Percent

Year

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

Present law With this provision

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2009 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actuary, Social Security

November 16, 2009

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Percent

Year

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

Cost rates with this provision

Income rates under present law

Income rates with this provision

Cost rates under present law

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Percent

Year

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

Present law With this provision
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

FRANCISCO MEDINA CASTENEDA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-10125

D.C. No. 2:03-cr-00549-WBS-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

William B. Shubb, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 18, 2013** 

Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

Francisco Medina Casteneda appeals from the district court’s order denying

his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

FEB 18 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Casteneda’s sentence is within the modified Sentencing Guidelines range. 

However, he contends that he argued before the district court that the disparity

between his sentence and the sentences of his co-conspirators warranted a sentence

reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) and that the district court erred by failing

to address that argument. Because Casteneda did not object below, we review for

plain error. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir. 2008).

Casteneda has not shown plain error affecting his substantial rights. See id.; see

also United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93, 995-96 (9th Cir. 2008) (en

banc). Casteneda’s reliance on United States v. Trujillo, 713 F.3d 1003, 1008-10

n.5 (9th Cir. 2013), is misplaced because, unlike Casteneda, Trujillo raised

extensive non-frivolous arguments tethered to specific § 3553(a) factors and

received a sentence above the modified Guidelines range. In addition, Casteneda

has not shown a reasonable probability that the sentence would have been different

absent the alleged error. See Dallman, 533 F.3d at 761-62.

AFFIRMED.

2
#### W. B. COLBERT, Individually. and *W.*B. COLBERT, Next Friend of SHIRLEY COLBERT, Minor, v. MAURICE C. COLLINS and L. L. COLLINS, and L. L. COLLINS, Guardian Ad Litem of MAURICE C. COLLINS, Minor.

(Filed 30 April, 1947.)

Parties § 10c—

In this action, -involving a collision between two automobiles, the Superior Court granted defendants’ petition for the joinder of the owner and driver of a third car involved in the collision. *Held:*The order of the Superior Court must be affirmed, since if the additional parties defendant are proper parties, joinder was in the discretion of the court and not subject to review, or if such additional parties are necessary parties to. a complete determination of the controversy, the court was required 10 have them brought in as parties defendant.

Appeal by plaintiffs from *Thompson, J.,*at September Term, 1946, of ESANKLIN.

*396Tbe action was commenced by tbe above named plaintiffs against tbe above named defendants to recover damages for negligence alleged to bave been caused by said defendants, and tbe defendants filed petition to tbe Superior Court of Franklin County for an order making Paul Ingram and Raymond Ingram parties defendant. Tbe allegations are to tbe effect that there was a collision between tbe cars of *W.*B. Colbert, driven by Sbirley Colbert, minor, and tbe car of L. L. Collins, driven by Maurice C. Collins, minor, in wbicb collision a third car of Raymond Ingram, driven by Paul Ingram, becáme involved. Tbe petition was denied by the Clerk of tbe Superior Court of Franklin County and an appeal was taken by tbe defendants to tbe judge bolding tbe courts, and upon sucb appeal tbe ruling of tbe Clerk was reversed by tbe judge by an order entered making said Paul Ingram and Raymond Ingram parties defendant. To sucb order tbe plaintiffs preserved exception and appealed to tbe Supreme Court, assigning errors.

*John F. Matthews for plaintiffs, appellants.*

*No counsel for defendants, appellees.*

Per Curiam.

Tbe only exceptive assignment of error contained in tbe record is to tbe signing of tbe judgment by tbe judge presiding. This assignment of error is untenable, since if tbe parties sought to be made parties defendant are proper parties tbe order was within tbe discretion of tbe court and not subject to review, or if, on tbe other band, such parties are necessary parties, without whose presence a complete determination of tbe controversy could not be bad, tbe court was required to have them brought in as parties defendant. McIntosh, Prac. & Proc., Sec. 259, p. 245. Tbe order entered, therefore, should be

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
   
<CIK>                         0001060224                         
<NAME>                        SOVRAN ACQUISITION LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000                  
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1998             
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                 1.000            
<CASH>                          2,695
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   1,335
<ALLOWANCES>                    0             
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                7,060
<PP&E>                          452,091
<DEPRECIATION>                  15,873
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  443,278
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           165,466
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        0
<OTHER-SE>                      264,998
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    443,278      
<SALES>                         0       
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                30,817
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   8,481
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                6,494
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0     
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              3,368
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 12,474    
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             12,474
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 350
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    12,124
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   .95
<EPS-DILUTED>                   .95
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
                                                                     EXHIBIT 11
 
                 PARAGON HEALTH NETWORK, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                       COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                   (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
                                  (UNAUDITED)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         1997    1996    1995
                                                        ------- ------- -------
<S>                                                     <C>     <C>     <C>
ASSUMING FULL DILUTION (a)
Net Income............................................. $43,917 $43,180 $24,234
Pro forma taxes (b)....................................       0       0     599
                                                        ------- ------- -------
Pro forma net income................................... $43,917 $43,180 $23,635
                                                        ======= ======= =======
APPLICABLE COMMON SHARES:
  Weighted average shares outstanding during the
   period..............................................  58,614  60,372  56,553
  Weighted average shares issuable upon exercise of
   common stock options using the treasury stock
   method..............................................   1,194     573     579
  Weighted average shares issuable upon exercise of
   warrants using the treasury stock method............      --      --      --
                                                        ------- ------- -------
  Total shares.........................................  59,808  60,945  57,132
                                                        ======= ======= =======
Earnings per share (fully diluted)..................... $  0.73 $  0.71 $  0.42
                                                        ======= ======= =======
Pro forma earnings per share (fully diluted)........... $  0.73 $  0.71 $  0.41
                                                        ======= ======= =======
</TABLE>
--------
(a)  This calculation is submitted in accordance with Regulation S-K, item 601
     (b) (11) although not required by footnote 2 to paragraph 14 of APB
     Opinion No. 15 because it results in less than 3% dilution.
 
(b)  The pro forma provision is included to reflect the estimated taxes that
     would have been incurred on the BCC Entities S corporations
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                           METRETEK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

Southern Flow Companies, Inc., a Delaware corporation

PowerSecure, Inc., a Delaware corporation

Metretek, Incorporated, a Florida corporation
   Metretek Europe Limited, a Great Britain company
   Sigma VI, Inc., a Florida corporation
   Metretek Contract Manufacturing Company, Inc., a Florida corporation

Marcum Gas Transmission, Inc., a Colorado corporation
   Marcum Capital Resources, Inc., a Colorado corporation

PowerSpring, Inc. a Delaware corporation
   Mercator Energy Incorporated, a Colorado corporation

Marcum Denver, Inc., a Colorado corporation