alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
GILB ER T LER

M A, Jr., DB A Sty listic s C ar C lub, a

n individual, Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. STYLISTIC S LOS ANGELES C AR C LUB , INC ., a

C a lifornia

c orporation; JOR GE LUIS R

AM IR EZ, a

n individua l, De fe nda n ts-Appe lla

nts. No. 15-55270

D.C . No. 2:12-c v-06704-DDP-JEM
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia De a n D. Pre ge rson, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Nove m

be r 8, 2016 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : WARDLAW

and B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s, a nd B ELL, *** Distric t

Judge
. 

# FIL ED N OV 17 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble R obe rt Holm e s B e ll, Unite d Sta te s Distric t Judge for the W e ste rn Distric t of M i c higa n, sitting by

de signa t ion.Jorge Luis R a m i re z and his c om pa ny , Sty l istic s Los Ange le s C ar C lub, Inc ., a ppe a l the distric t c o urt’ s de fa ult judgm e nt c anc e ling the i r fe de ra l tra de m ark
re gistra tion. Appe l la

nts’ prim ary

c onte ntion is tha

t the distric t c ourt ha d jurisdic tion to only

re vie w the de c ision of theTra de m ark Tria l a nd Appe a l B oa

rd (TTAB ) and not inde

pe nde ntly rule on tra d e m ark infringe m e nt c la i m s. B ut
a lthough the

TTAB ’ s findings m ay

inde e d be c h a l le nge d in distric t c ourt, se e 15 U.S.C . § 1071(b), nothing pre ve nts a c ourt from

a djudic a ting a

n infringe m e nt
a c tion unde r the ge ne ra l provisions of the La nha m Ac t, se e 5 U.S.C § 1119. The only e ffe c t the TTAB ’ s de c i sion m ay have on distric t c ourt proc e e dings is through the d oc trine of issue pre c lusion, se e B & B Hardw are , Inc
. v . Hargis Indus., Inc
. , 135 S. C t. 1293, 1299, 1310 (2015), whic h is non-jurisdic tiona l. Appe lla nts ne xt a rgue t ha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in dire c ting the U.S. Pa te nt
and Tra de m ark Offic e to re voke the ir tra de m ark re gistra tion be c a use suc h re lie f
wa s not re que ste d in the c om pla int, a s re q

uire d unde r Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e d ure 54(c ). B u t the c om

pla int did re que st both a

n injunc t ion a ga inst Appe l la n ts’ use of the m ark and a n orde r de c la

ring tha t Appe lle e is the m ark’ s rightful owne r. That re lie f doe s not “ diffe r in kind,”Fe d. R . C iv. P. 54(c ), from a re que s t to re voke the tra de m ark re gistra tion. AFFIRM E D.
2
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 26, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-2577

Peabody Energy 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
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JEAN ERNST JOSEPH

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 3766

[May 9, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Timothy L. Bailey , Judge; L.T. Case No.

13009009CF10A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Tatjana Ostapoff, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

In this Anders 1 appeal, we affirm the trial cour t’s disposition and sentence in appellant’s violation of probation proceeding. However, we remand for entry of a written order of revocation of probation specifying the conditions appellant was found to have violated. See Clark v. State

, 201 So. 3d 799

, 799 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). The judge specified those conditions on the record, but a written order is required to incorporate those findings.

Affirmed and remanded with instructions.

M AY
, L EVINE and K LINGENSMITH , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

1 Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, (1967).2
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-2018-0025-2894

Price Pump Company:

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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3854

Academy, 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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 52 (Friday, March 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 14450]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6661]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of the Secretary


Agency Recordkeeping/Reporting Requirements Under Review by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

March 13, 1995.
    The Department of Labor has submitted the following public 
information collection requests (ICRs) to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act 
(44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) of 1980, as amended (P.L. 96-511). Copies may be 
obtained by calling the Department of Labor Departmental Clearance 
Officer, Kenneth A. Mills ((202) 219-5095). Comments and questions 
about the ICRs listed below should be directed to Mr. Mills, Office of 
Information Resources Management Policy, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-1301, Washington, DC 20210. Comments 
should also be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for (BLS/DM/ESA/ETA/OAW/MSHA/OSHA/PWBA/
VETS), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, Washington, DC 
20503 ((202) 395-7316).

Type of Review: Extension
Agency: Employment Standards Administration
Title: Request from Claimant for Information on Earnings, Dual 
Benefits, Dependents, and Third Party Settlement
OMB Number: 1215-0151
Agency Number: CA-1032
Frequency: Annually
Affected Public: Individuals or households
Number of Respondents: 50,000
Estimated time per respondent: 20 minutes
Total Burden Hours: 16,667
Description: The CA-1032 is used to obtain information from claimants 
receiving compensation on the Division of Federal Employees' 
Compensation periodic disability roll. This information is necessary to 
ensure that the amount of compensation being paid is correct.
Kenneth A. Mills,
Departmental Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-6661 Filed 3-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-27-M
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-2018-0025-2908

Yardmax Power Products, 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 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
#### Albert J. KNIPP and Mildred F. Knipp, Respondents, v. Karen S. NOSOVITCH and Greg Nosovitch, a/k/a Paul G. Nosovitch, her husband, Appellants, Patricia Baughman and Andy Baughman, her husband, Russell Knipp and Debra Jo Knipp, his wife, Respondents.

No. WD 48150.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 14, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Aug. 2, 1994.

Application to Transfer Denied Sept. 20, 1994.

Peggy D. Richardson, Andereck, Evans, Milne Peace & Baumhoer, Jefferson City, for respondents Russell Knipp, Debra Jo Knipp, Sharon K. Knipp and Mike Knipp.

Ronald J. Prenger, Jefferson City, for appellant Karen S. Nosovitch.

Before LOWENSTEIN, P.J., and BERREY and SPINDEN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a dismissal of an amended cross-petition filed in 1993, which alleges fraud occurring prior to January, 1980, and discovered in 1989. Dismissal on limitations grounds was not in error where, contrary to Rule 55.15, averments of fraud “shall be stated with particularity.” Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RASHAD CHISHOLM,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-17-00258-CR

Appeal from the

120th District Court 

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20120D02440) 

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2019.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
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-2018-0025-3564

Scosche Industries, 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

General Counsel
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

FRANKLIN ESPINO-ZAMORA, a.k.a.

Franklin Ivan Espino-Zamora,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-10162

D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00158-JCM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 15, 2013** 

Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. 

Franklin Espino-Zamora appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 15-month sentence for being an illegal

alien in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5)(A) and

FILED

OCT 22 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-10162

924(a)(2). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), EspinoZamora’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along

with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Espino-Zamora

the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or

answering brief has been filed.

Espino-Zamora has waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. 

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United

States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss

the appeal. See id. at 988.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. 

DISMISSED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1998
<CASH>                                          57,281
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,451
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    116,274
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               207,739
<PP&E>                                         225,867
<DEPRECIATION>                                 107,513
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 364,318
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          117,014
<BONDS>                                        269,350
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                    (34,056)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   364,318
<SALES>                                      1,726,107
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,726,107
<CGS>                                        1,323,522
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,323,522
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               368,511
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,206
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,990
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,459
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,531
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,531
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    50.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    50.62
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10.2

 

ENDORSEMENT TO 10% SENIOR SECURED CONVERTIBLE NOTE

 

Precision Optics Corporation, Inc.
 New York, New York
 June 28, 2011

 

The 10% Senior Secured Convertible Note dated June 25, 2008 and amended December 11, 2008, June 25, 2010 July 26, 2010, September 15, 2010, October 15, 2010, November 15, 2010, November 30, 2010, December 1, 2010, December 3, 2010 and December 17, 2010, January 10, 2011,  January 24, 2011, February 7, 2011, February 25, 2011, March 11, 2011, March 31, 2011,  April 14, 2011, April 29, 2011, May 13, 2011 and June 3, 2011 (the “Note”) of Precision Optics Corporation, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation (the “Company”), payable to the order of Special Situations Private Equity Fund, L.P. (the “Holder”) in an aggregate principal amount of $275,000 and to which the Endorsement is affixed is hereby amended in the following respects:

 

1.                                       The term “Stated Maturity Date” is hereby restated to be “July 8, 2011.”

 

2.                                       Except as expressly amended by this Endorsement, the Note remains in full force and effect and the Company hereby reconfirms its obligations thereunder.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Endorsement to be duly executed, and the Holder has caused this Endorsement to be duly accepted, by their respective duly authorized representatives as of the day and year first above written.

 

 

	
 
    	
PRECISION   OPTICS CORPORATION, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By
    	
/s/   Joseph N. Forkey
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Name:   Joseph N. Forkey
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Title:   Chief Executive Officer
    


 

	
Accepted:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
SPECIAL   SITUATIONS PRIVATE EQUITY FUND, L.P.
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
/s/   Adam Stettner
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Name:   Adam Stettner
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Title:   General Partner
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-2018-0025-2716

Price Pump Company:

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