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 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3190

Viavi Solutions 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

General Counsel
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONRAD
INDUSTRIES, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           5,396
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,622
<ALLOWANCES>                                        20
<INVENTORY>                                        213
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,394
<PP&E>                                          29,276
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,621
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  47,036
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,983
<BONDS>                                          3,552
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            71
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,187
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    47,036
<SALES>                                         18,486
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,486
<CGS>                                           13,679
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,679
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,158
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 284
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,365
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,007
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,358
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,358
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.19


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6176

DAVID EUGENE BRINKLEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ROSCOE RAMSEY, Doctor; DOCTOR 

CARLOS DUCHESNE; P. A. GONZALEZ; WARDEN TOMMY JOHNS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:10-ct-03084-BO)

Submitted: June 26, 2012 Decided: July 12, 2012

Before KEENAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Eugene Brinkley, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

David Eugene Brinkley appeals the district court’s 

order dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006) this 

action filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of 

Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Federal 

Tort Claims Act. We have reviewed the record and find that this 

appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Brinkley v. United 

States, No. 5:10-ct-03084-BO (E.D.N.C. Mar. 11, 2011 & Jan. 10, 

2012). 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
Exhibit 13.1






CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350,
 
 In connection with the Annual Report of Lorus Therapeutics Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ended May 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Aiping H. Young, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:
 
 1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Date: September 27, 2012
 
 
 /s/ Aiping H. Young
 Aiping H. Young
 President and Chief Executive Officer
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-2018-0025-2018

Reelcraft Industries:

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
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**Certification
      of Periodic Report**


**Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**


**As
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002**





Pursuant
      to, and for purposes only of, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned hereby certifies
      that (i) the Quarterly Report of Peoples Bancorp, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the
      quarter ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) information contained
      in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and results of operations of Peoples Bancorp, Inc. and
      Subsidiaries.




Date: 
      August 10, 2007


/s/
      Thomas G. Stevenson


Thomas
      G.
      Stevenson


President/Chief
      Executive Officer &
      Chief Financial Officer
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3550

Tianhai Electric North 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 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
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-2018-0025-2469

JAE Electronics, Inc:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20. 

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

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

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
IN THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, LAKELAND, FLORIDA 

August 1, 2014 

WILLIAM SPENCE, ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D13-2297 

 ) 

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

 ) 

 Appellee. ) 

________________________________ ) 

BY ORDER OF THE COURT: 

 Appellee's motion for clarification and to recall mandate issued on June 3, 2014, 

is granted. See § 43.44, Fla. Stat. (2014). The prior opinion dated May 9, 2014, is 

withdrawn, and the attached opinion is issued in its place. 

I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING IS A 

TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL COURT ORDER. 

JAMES BIRKHOLD, CLERK 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

OF FLORIDA 

SECOND DISTRICT 

WILLIAM SPENCE, ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D13-2297 

 ) 

STATE OF FLORIDA, ) 

 ) 

 Appellee. ) 

________________________________ ) 

Opinion filed August 1, 2014. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Pinellas County; Philip J. Federico, 

Judge. 

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and Simone A. Lennon, Special 

Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, 

for Appellant. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Wendy Buffington, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, 

for Appellee. 

KELLY, Judge. 

 William Spence was convicted of various offenses but on appeal he 

challenges only his conviction for driving while his license was permanently revoked, in 
- 2 - 

violation of section 322.341, Florida Statutes (2010). He argues that he is entitled to a 

new trial on this charge because the trial court failed to give a jury instruction on the 

necessarily included lesser offense of no valid driver's license. We agree.

 A trial court commits reversible error when it fails to give a jury instruction 

on a necessarily included lesser offense when the defendant requests it. See Hagood 

v. State, 824 So. 2d 252, 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (citing State v. Wimberly, 498 So. 2d 

929, 932 (Fla. 1986) ("The trial judge has no discretion in whether to instruct the jury on 

a necessarily lesser included offense.")). Recognizing the jury's pardon power, the 

supreme court has stated that, " '[t]he failure to instruct on the next immediate lesser 

included offense (one step removed) constitutes error that is per se reversible.' " 

Sanders v. State, 946 So. 2d 953, 957 (Fla. 2006) (quoting Reddick v. State, 394 So. 2d 

417, 418 (Fla. 1981)). Because the crime of no valid driver’s license is a necessarily 

included lesser of driving while license is permanently revoked, see Sorrell v. State, 855 

So. 2d 1253, 1256 n.5 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), the trial court erred in failing to give the 

instruction. The defense repeatedly objected when the trial court stated during the 

charge conference that it was not going to give an instruction on the lesser offense. 

Therefore, the issue was preserved for appellate review. 

 Accordingly, we reverse Spence's conviction for driving while license is 

permanently revoked and remand for a new trial on that count. We affirm Spence's 

remaining convictions and sentences. 

 Affirmed in part; reversed in part. 

WALLACE and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3691

ECM Industries 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 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
#### W. J. SHUFORD, Receiver of the “Y. & B. CORPORATION,” v. J. A. YARBOROUGH and EAGLE INDEMNITY CO.

(Filed 1 May, 1929.)

1. Pleadings D b — Joinder of unnecessary parties not demurrable.

A demurrer for defect of parties and causes of action will not be sustained where the defect alleged relates to parties not necessary to the proper determination of the action.

2. Same — ^Joinder of defaulting officer and surety on his bond is proper under facts of this case.

A suit by the receiver of a corporation against its defaulting officer and the surety or guarantor for his honesty or fidelity is not objectionable as a misjoinder of parties and causes of action, the alleged default of the principal having occurred that created the surety’s liability within the terms and conditions of its bond. *Olarh v. Bonsai, 157*N. G., 270, in which the indemnity was against “loss actually paid” cited and distinguished.

*151Appeal by defendants from *Stack, J.,*at March Term, 1929, of Mecklenbubg.

Civil action by plaintiff, receiver, to recover of J. A. Yarborough $60,625.84, moneys alleged to have been unlawfully abstracted and. misappropriated by him while acting as president and treasurer of the Y. *&*B. Corporation, and to hold the Eagle Indemnity Company liable for said defalcations to the extent of $10,000 on its written guaranty of the fidelity of said officer.

A demurrer was interposed chiefly upon the grounds (1) of an alleged defect of parties, and (2) of an alleged misjoinder, both of parties and of causes of action.

• From a judgment overruling the demurrer, the defendants appeal, assigning errors.

*Preston & Boss and F. B. Cline for plaintiff.*

*Wade H. Williams and Fred B. Helms for defendants.*

Stacy, O. J.

The demurrer was properly overruled on both grounds. C. S., 507 and annotations.

A “defect of parties” applies to necessary parties, and not to unnecessary ones. *Winders v. Hill,*141 N. C., 694, 54 S. E., 440.

It is not a misjoinder of parties and causes for the receiver of a corporation to sue its president and treasurer for wrongfully abstracting and misappropriating funds of the corporation and at the same time join as party defendant his surety or the guarantor of his honesty and fidelity. *Carswell v. Talley,*192 N. C., 37, 133 S. E., 181; *Robinson v. Williams,*189 N. C., 256, 126 S. E., 621; *Chemical Co. v. Floyd,*158 N. C., 455, 74 S. E., 465; *S. v. Bank,*193 N. C., 524, 137 S. E., 593.

The case of *Clark v. Bonsal,*157 N. C., 270, 72 S. E., 954, is not in point, for there the contract between the defendants was one of strict indemnity against “loss actually paid.” The allegations of the present complaint are to the effect that the defendant, Eagle Indemnity Company, “guarantees the fidelity of the president and treasurer of the Y. & B. Corporation in the sum of $10,000, . . . and agrees to make good any loss sustained by reason of his dishonesty, theft or wrongful abstraction,” etc., and that loss has already been sustained within the terms of the contract of guaranty.

Affirmed.
1 The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-2858

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. Ronald Dale Christy, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: April 6, 2001 Filed: April 12, 2001

___________ Before LOKEN, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. In1989, Ronald Dale Christy pleaded guilty to bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (g), and was sentenced to 51 months imprisonment--to run consecutively to another federal sentence--and 3 years supervised release. While Mr. Christy was serving the supervised release portion of his sentence, his probation off icer filed a violation report alleging that Mr. Christy had violated several release conditions. After a hearing, the district court 1 found that he had violated his releaseconditions, revoked supervised release, and sentenced Mr. Christy to 24 months

imprisonment. He now appeals, challenging the district court’s factual determinations, the length of his revocation sentence, and the district court’s jurisdiction. We affirm. Having reviewed the record and Mr. Christy’s brief, we first conclude the district court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous, given Mr. Christy’s concession at the revocation hearing that he violated two supervised-release conditions, and the probation officer’s testimony that Mr. Christy was arrested and charged with a drugr elated offense, in violation of another condition. See UnitedStates v. Bad Wound , 203 F.3d 1072, 1076 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of review). Next, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a 24-month revocation sentence. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), 3559(a)(3), 3583(e)(3); UnitedStates v. Shaw , 180 F.3d 920, 922-23 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam); United States v. Grimes , 54 F.3d 489, 492 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review). Finally, we reject as meritless Mr. Christy’s jurisdictional argument, because the district court’s 1989 judgment and commitment order specified that he would be subject to supervised release. Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
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-2018-0025-2831

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