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-2018-0025-3578

Stanley Electric Co, Ltd:

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
#### M. C. SALASSA v. WESTERN CAROLINA TITLE AND MORTGAGE COMPANY and C. L. MAXWELL.

(Filed 9 January, 1929.)

Chattel Mortgages — Registration and Indexing — Lien and Priority — Attachment.

The claim of an attaching creditor is superior to a lien under a prior unregistered chattel mortgage.

Appeal by intervener, Freas Brothers, Inc., from *McElroy, J.,*at August Term, 1928, of BuNcombe.

Affirmed.

*Harkins & Van Winkle for plaintiff.*

*J. H. Baumberger and F. W. Thomas fm* intervener.*

Pee Cueiam.

It appears upon tbe agreed statement of facts that tbe defendant Maxwell bought a Dodge car from tbe intervener on November 30, 1925,' in tbe State of Pennsylvania, and to secure tbe unpaid part of tbe purchase price executed a conditional sales contract which was never recorded in Pennsylvania or in North Carolina. Maxwell afterwards moved to North Carolina and became indebted to tbe plain*502tiff on a promissory note. Tbe plaintiff brought suit on the note and attached the car in Buncombe County. The only question is whether the plaintiff’s claim has precedence over that of the intervener. The trial judge held that upon the agreed facts the plaintiff’s claim has priority. In our opinion this conclusion is free from error, and the judgment is

Affirmed.
#### Darrell Lee BOSTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 10-90-223-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Waco.

July 13, 1994.

Steven A. Kelley, Waxahachie, for appellant.

Mary Lou Shipley, County & Dist. Atty., David Sloan, Ass’t County & Dist. Atty., Waxahachie, for appellee.

Before THOMAS, C.J., and CUMMINGS and VANCE, JJ.

OPINION ON REMAND

PER CURIAM.

On original submission we reversed Darrell Lee Boston’s conviction for robbery, holding that the trial court’s refusal to allow Boston to make an opening statement before the State’s presentation of evidence was error, and that such error was not harmless.1
      *260Subsequently, a majority of the Court of Criminal Appeals in *Moore v. State,*held that article 86.01(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not afford criminal defendants the right to make an opening statement prior to presentation of the State’s case when the State does not make an opening statement.2 As a result, the Court of Criminal Appeals summarily granted the State’s petition for discretionary review, reversed the judgment of this court in *Boston*and remanded the case to us for reconsideration in light of their opinion in *Moore.*
      *3*

In *Moore,*the Court of Criminal Appeals held that article 86.01(b) is inapplicable in cases in which the State waives opening statement.4 On original submission, Boston raised a single point of error complaining only of the trial court’s refusal to allow him to make an opening statement before the State’s presentation of evidence pursuant to article 36.01(b). However, as in *Moore,*the State waived opening statement in this ease. Furthermore, Boston has not filed a brief on remand urging other grounds for reversal in light of *Moore.*
      *5*
      **Consequently, in accordance with the opinion and judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals, we now affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Affirmed.

. *Boston v. State,*833 S.W.2d 334, 336-37 (Tex.App.—Waco 1992) (citing *Arriaga v. State,*804 S.W.2d 271, 273-74 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1991, pet. ref'd); *Farrar v. State,*784 S.W.2d 54, 56 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1989, no pet.)).

*. 868*S.W.2d 787, 791 (Tex.Crim.App.1993).

. *Boston v. State,*871 S.W.2d 752, 752 (Tex.Crim.App.1994).

*. See Moore,*868 S.W.2d at 790-91.

. *See*10th Tex.App. (Waco) Loc.R. 12.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-1362

PALMER BALTHIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LARRY G. MASSANARI, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District Judge. (CA-00-34-2) Submitted: September 10, 2001 Decided: September 21, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Roger W. Rutherford, Erick A. Bowman, WOLFE & FARMER, Norton, Virginia, for Appellant. James A. Winn, Regional Chief Counsel, Region III, Patricia M. Smith, Deputy Chief Counsel, Taryn Goldstein, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Ruth E. Plagenhoef, United States Attorney, John F. Corcoran, Assistant United States Attorney, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Palmer Balthis appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security in Balthis’s action for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 401-433 (West Supp. 2001). Balthis worked in the coal mining industry until June 21, 1996, when he stopped working because of heart problems, back pain and hearing loss. This court must uphold the denial of benefits if the decision is supported by substantial evidence and the correct legal standard was applied. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g); Craig v. Chater , 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996). We have reviewed the entire administrative record, including additional evidence submitted to the Appeals Council, and find substantial evidence supports the Administrative Law Judge’s determination that Balthis was able toreturn to his past relevant work. Therefore, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Balthis v. Massanari , No. CA-00-34-2 (W.D. Va. Feb. 14, 2001). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT 32.1**TWEETER HOME ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC.CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002In connection with this Quarterly Report of Tweeter Home Entertainment Group, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof, (the “Report”), I, Joseph G. McGuire, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (section) 1350, as adopted pursuantto (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 SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.Date: February 9, 2007   /s/ Joseph G. McGuire Joseph G. McGuire  President and Chief Executive Officer
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-2018-0025-10401

Sears Holdings Management 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 did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

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
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-2018-0025-3185

Kimberly-Clark 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 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-2018-0025-2832

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
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4254 

To amend the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to clarify a provision relating 

to certain contents of registrations under that Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 18 (legislative day, MAY 17), 2022 

Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. PETERS, Mr. SASSE, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. CORNYN, Ms. HASSAN, and Ms. SINEMA) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to clarify 

a provision relating to certain contents of registrations 

under that Act. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Disclosing Foreign In5 fluence in Lobbying Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF CONTENTS OF REGISTRATION. 

7 Section 4(b) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 

8 (2 U.S.C. 1603(b)) is amended— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4254 IS

1 (1) in paragraph (6), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

2 end; and 

3 (2) in paragraph (7), by striking ‘‘the offense.’’ 

4 and inserting the following: ‘‘the offense; and 

5 ‘‘(8) notwithstanding paragraph (4), the name 

6 and address of each government of a foreign country 

7 (including any agency or subdivision of a foreign 

8 government, such as a regional or municipal unit of 

9 government) and foreign political party, other than 

10 the client, that participates in the direction, plan11 ning, supervision, or control of any lobbying activi12 ties of the registrant.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
ZACKERY MARTIN,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-1849

_____________________________/

Opinion filed March 21, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

James C. Hankinson, Judge.

Gary J. Schwartz, Orlando, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Gayla Grant, Assistant General Counsel, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, RAY, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
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-2018-0025-1809

GHL International, 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 did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

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
Thank you for your call. As you know, I was reaching out to USTR because while we, ITW Global Tire 

Repair, greatly appreciates the granted exclusion, we cannot act on it. The limiting verbiage is “each 

valued not over $2.” 

Excerpt from FRN 49564 published September 20, 2019:

The highest purchase price for our gauges is $8.50 and our average cost is $6. Therefore, in our previous 

phone conversations, I quoted $8 as our minimum but a slightly higher dollar value would be ideal in 

case raw material cost increase. Would that be possible? 

Thank you, 

Corie Erskine
**Exhibit
10.2**


**OPTION
AGREEMENT**








This
Option Agreement evidences the grant of a stock option (the "Option") to
purchase shares of common stock, par value $.001 (the "Company Stock"), of
Generex Biotechnology Corporation (the "Company") granted to **Mindy
J. Allport-Settle** (the
"Optionee") pursuant to the Generex Biotechnology Corporation 2001 Stock Option
Plan (the “Plan”), a copy of which is attached to this Option Agreement and
incorporated into this Option Agreement by reference. The Option is subject to
the terms, conditions, limitations and restrictions set forth in the Plan,
including the following:





a.  The date
of grant of the Option is **April
5, 2005** and the
number of shares of Company Stock that may be purchased upon exercise of the
Option is **100,000
(One Hundred Thousand Dollars)** .





b.  The
purchase price (the “Exercise Price”) of Company Stock subject to the Option is


**$0.56** per
share.





c.  The
Option is fully vested upon issuance.





d.  Unless
sooner terminated pursuant to the Plan, the Option shall terminate on **April
4, 2010.** Option
will survive the termination of the Optionee’s employment.





e.  The
Optionee shall pay the Exercise Price for the Option (i) in cash or (ii) by such
other method as may be approved by the Compensation Committee of the Company’s
Board of Directors. The Optionee shall pay the amount of any withholding tax due
at the time of exercise, as provided in the Plan.





f.  The
rights and interests of the Optionee under this Option Agreement may not be
sold, assigned, encumbered or otherwise transferred, except, in the event of the
death of the Optionee, by will or by the laws of descent and
distribution.





g.  Any
notice to the Company, including notice of exercise of an Option, shall be
addressed to the Company in care of Slava Jarnitskii at the Company’s principal
offices.





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this Option Agreement has been executed on behalf of the
Company by a duly authorized officer and by the Optionee effective as of the
date of grant of the Option.







GENEREX BIOTECHNOLOGY
      CORPORATION
    
    
    ACCEPTED AND AGREED:By:
    /s/ Rose C. Perri
    
    
    /s/ Mindy J. Allport-SettleROSE C. PERRI
    
    
    Mindy J.
Allport-Settle
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 17, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-2817

Forsta Filters 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/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September.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
Order filed October 20, 2015 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00683-CV

____________

FREDERIC SCOTT DEAVER, Appellant

V.

RIDDHI DESAI AND SHILPI PANKAJ DESAI, Appellee

On Appeal from the 295th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2014-18950

O R D E R

The clerk’s record was filed November 5, 2014. Our review has determined that a 

relevant item has been omitted from the clerk's record. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c). The record 

does not contain a copy of “Shilpi Desai’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss,” filed 

in the trial court on July 25, 2014

The Harris County District Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record on or 

before October 30, 2015, containing a copy of “Shilpi Desai’s Response to Defendant’s Motion 

to Dismiss,” filed in the trial court on July 25, 2014.
If the omitted item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to file a 

supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the omitted item is not a part of 

the case file.

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 32.2
 
 
 Certification
of Acting co-CFOs Pursuant to
 18
U.S.C. Section 1350,
 as
Adopted Pursuant to
 Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of GAMCO Investors, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Jeffrey M.
Farber, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of his 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.
 
 
 /s/       Jeffrey
M. Farber
 Name:
Jeffrey M. Farber
 Title:   Chief
Financial Officer
 Date:   May
8, 2009
 
 This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.