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

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2839

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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 10, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 2570]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-548]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 70

[AD-FRL-5135-9]


Clean Air Act Interim Approval of Operating Permits Program; City 
of Albuquerque/Bernalillo County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes interim approval of the Operating Permits 
Program submitted by the City of Albuquerque/Bernalillo County. The 
City of Albuquerque/Bernalillo County's Operating Permits Program was 
submitted for the purpose of complying with Federal requirements which 
mandate that States develop, and submit to EPA, programs for issuing 
operating permits to all major stationary sources, and to certain other 
sources. In the final rules section of this Federal Register, the EPA 
is promulgating interim approval of the City of Albuquerque/Bernalillo 
County's Operating Permits Program as a direct final rule without prior 
proposal because the Agency views this submittal as noncontroversial 
and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the 
approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments 
are received in response to this proposed rule, no further activity is 
contemplated in relation to this rule. If the EPA receives adverse 
comments, then the direct final will be withdrawn and all public 
comments will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this 
proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on 
this document. Any parties interested in commenting on this document 
should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by 
February 9, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the City/County's submittal and other supporting 
information used in developing the final rule are available for 
inspection during normal business hours at the following locations. 
Interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an 
appointment with the appropriate office at least 24 hours before 
visiting day.
    Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Programs Branch (6T-
AN), 1445 Ross Avenue, suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    City of Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, Environmental Health 
Department, One Civic Plaza, NW., room 3023, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 
87103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adele D. Cardenas, New Source Review 
Section, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 
suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-7210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the direct 
final rule of the same title which is located in the Rules section of 
this Federal Register.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-76719.

    Dated: December 23, 1994.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator (6A).
[FR Doc. 95-548 Filed 1-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
#### DOROTHY WILLIAMS LAMSON v. HERBERT LAMSON, JR.

(Filed 9 November, 1960.)

Appeal by defendant from *Hobgood, J.,*June 1960 Civil Term, Wake Superior Court.

Civil action for alimony without divorce. The plaintiff filed a verified complaint in which she alleged the marriage; the birth of a child, Daniel Lamson, now 11; wrongful separation and abandonment of the plaintiff and child by the defendant who has failed to provide them with necessary subsistence according to his means and condition in life; that the defendant owns property and is gainfully employed; that the plaintiff has no income or estate, and is without sufficient means to support and provide for herself and the child and to prosecute this action.

She further alleged “by cruel and barbarous treatment contin*337uing over a period of several months,-defendant has endangered the life of the plaintiff,” specifying details. She alleged also she is a suitable and proper person to have the custody of Daniel Lamson.

The defendant made a motion to strike certain parts of the complaint. The motion was allowed in part and denied in part. The defendant filed a demurrer to the complaint which was overruled. He then filed an affidavit showing his contributions and moved the claim for alimony be denied.

The court entered findings of fact 'and ordered the defendant to pay certain sums for the benefit of the wife and child and her counsel. Defendant excepted and appealed.

*Vaughn S. Winborne, Samuel Pretlow Winborne, By: Vaughn S. Winborne for defendant, appellant.*

*Ellis Nassif, Taylor and Ellis for plaintiff, appellee.*

Peh CüRiam.

The plaintiff sought relief under G.S. 50-16. Her complaint states a cause of action for abandonment and failure to support under that section. Rule 4(a).,.Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court (242 N.C. 766) permits appeal neither from an order on a motion to strike nor from an order overruling a demurrer, unless for misjoinder of parties and causes. However, the defendant had the right to prosecute his appeal from the order allowing alimony. The record fails to show merit in the appeal.

Affirmed.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT CHRISTOPHER LEE LIPPETT, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D19-1025 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed October 16, 2019. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County; J. Kevin Abdoney, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See McDonald v. State, 957 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 2007); Knight v. State, 808 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 2002); Ward v. State, 946 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Steward v. State, 931 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Ives v. State, 993 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Rangel v. State, 937 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).
KHOUZAM, C.J., and CASANUEVA and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
#### J. E. ALLEN v. JONAH ALLEN and Wife MABEL ALLEN, CURTIS ALLEN and Wife DOROTHY ALLEN, HERBERT ALLEN and Wife MARY LEE ALLEN.

(Filed 7 May, 1952.)

Appeal and Error §§ 19, 31g—

Appeal from judgment of the Superior Court dismissing action in summary ejectment for want of jurisdiction in the justice of the peace will be dismissed in the Supreme Court when the record fails to contain summons, pleadings or affidavit required by G.S. 42-28.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Moore, J.,*November Term, 1951, of Moose.

This is a summary proceeding in ejectment begun before a Justice of the Peace. Judgment was rendered 9 June, 1950, for the plaintiff. Defendants appealed to the Superior Court.

On the trial in the Superior Court, after hearing the testimony of the plaintiff, the court held that the action involves title to real estate and the question of betterments, as set out in the answer of the defendants, and that the Justice of the Peace before whom the case was tried had no jurisdiction to try the same; that the relation of landlord and tenant does not exist between the plaintiff and the defendants; and that there is a fatal misjoinder of parties and causes of action as alleged by the defendants in their answer.

Judgment was entered dismissing the action. The plaintiff appeals and assigns error.

*Seaivell & Sea-well for plaintiff, appellant.*

*Spence & Boyette fox defendants, appellees.*

DeNny, J.

The affidavit, summons, and pleadings of the plaintiff are not set forth in the transcript of the record, docketed in this Court, as required by Rule 19, sec. 1, of our Rules of Practice, 221 N.C. at page 553. The pleadings are an essential part of the record in order that we may be advised as to the nature of the action or proceeding. *Insurance Co. v. Bullard,*207 N.C. 652, 178 S.E. 113.

Moreover, in a summary proceeding in ejectment the “oath in writing,” required by G.S. 42-28, must allege certain essential facts in order to confer jurisdiction. *Howell v. Branson,*226 N.C. 264, 37 S.E. 2d 687. Therefore, the omission of these essential parts of the transcript, as required by our Rules, is fatal to the appeal. *Ericson v. Ericson,*226 N.C. 474, 38 S.E. 2d 517; *Washington County v. Land Co.,*222 N.C. 637, 24 S.E. 2d 338; *Bank v. McCullers,*211 N.C. 327, 190 S.E. 217; *Insurance Co. v. Bullard, supra; S. v. Lumber Co.,*207 N.C. 47, 175 S.E. 713; *Waters v. Waters,*199 N.C. 667, 155 S.E. 564; *Plott v. Construction Co.,**555198 N.C. 782, 153 S.E. 396; *Schwarberg v. Howard,*197 N.C. 126, 147 S.E. 741. “Failure to send up necessary parts of the record proper has uniformly resulted in dismissal of the appeal.” *Goodman v. Goodman,*208 N.C. 416, 181 S.E. 328; *Payne v. Brown,*205 N.C. 785, 172 S.E. 348; *Riggan v. Harrison,*203 N.C. 191, 165 S.E. 358; *Pruitt v. Wood,*199 N.C. 788, 156 S.E. 126.

Appeal dismissed.
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-2018-0025-1585

WorldWide Electric 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

September 26, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-11699

Bear Down Brands 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 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
EXHIBIT 21.1  Subsidiaries of the Registrant  Parent
  
  Subsidiary
  
  Percentage
  of Ownership
  
  State of Incorporation
  or OrganizationHF Financial Corp.
  
  Home Federal Bank
  
  100%
  
  DelawareHF Financial Corp.
  
  HomeFirstMortgage Corp.
  
  100%
  
  South DakotaHF Financial Corp.
  
  HF Financial Capital Trust III
  
  100%
  
  DelawareHF Financial Corp.
  
  HF Financial Capital Trust IV
  
  100%
  
  DelawareHF Financial Corp.
  
  HF Financial Capital Trust V
  
  100%
  
  DelawareHF Financial Corp.
  
  HF Financial Capital Trust VI
  
  100%
  
  DelawareHF Financial Corp.
  
  HF Financial Group, Inc.
  
  100%
  
  South DakotaHome Federal Bank
  
  Hometown Insurors, Inc.
  
  100%
  
  South DakotaHome Federal Bank
  
  Mid-America Service Corporation
  
  100%
  
  South DakotaHome Federal Bank
  
  PMD, Inc.
  
  100%
  
  South DakotaHome Federal Bank
  
  Mid America Capital Services, Inc. d/b/a/Mid America Leasing
  
  100%
  
  South DakotaHome Federal Bank
  
  Home Federal Securitization Corp.
  
  100%
  
  Delaware  The
financial statements of HF Financial Corp. are consolidated with those of its
subsidiaries.
#### Ex parte Perry William HARVEY, Jr.

No. 71590.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

Jan. 27, 1993.

*329Merrilie W. Maull, Sugar Land, for appellant.

Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This is a post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Article 11.07, V.A.C.C.P. Applicant was convicted of delivery of amphetamine. Punishment, enhanced by two prior convictions, was assessed at twenty-five years imprisonment. No appeal was taken from this conviction.

Applicant contends that the trial court has entered a judgment nunc pro tunc awarding 730 days pre-sentence jail time credit, but the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, refuses to implement this award because the nunc pro tunc judgment does not specify why applicant is entitled to that credit. Applicant has attached documents supporting these allegations, but no findings of fact have been entered.

Applicant is entitled to relief. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, is authorized to award and compute credits for good conduct time. V.T.C.A. Gov’t Code, §§ 498.-002-498.005. However, only the judge of the court in which the defendant was convicted shall compute credit for the time the defendant spent in jail in said cause from the time of his arrest and confinement until his sentence by the trial court. Article 42.03, §§ 2(a), 3, and 4, V.A.C.C.P. No requirement exists for the trial court to detail the reasons for the award of credits for time spent in jail prior to sentencing other than the documentation required in Article 42.09, § 8, V.A.C.C.P., provided that such credit does not exceed the time between date of commission of the offense and the imposition of sentence. See *Ex parte Hayward,*711 S.W.2d 652 (Tex.Cr.App.1986).

Relief is granted. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division is required to credit applicant’s sentence in cause number 16,308 in the 196th Judicial District Court of Hunt County with the amount of pre-sentence jail time credit reflected in any validly certified judgment nunc pro tunc.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional and Board of Pardons and Paroles Divisions.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3938 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3938

                      To reauthorize the READ Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 28, 2022

 Mr. Durbin (for himself and Mr. Rubio) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                      To reauthorize the READ Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``READ Act Reathorization Act of 
2022''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION.

    Section 4(a) of the Reinforcing Education Accountability in 
Development Act (division A of Public Law 115-56; 22 U.S.C. 2151c note) 
is amended by striking ``during the following five fiscal years'' and 
inserting ``during the following ten fiscal years''.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-60438

TWILA J. VASSAR,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, 

Defendants-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Mississippi

(4:93CV97-B-O)

February 14, 1996

Before WIENER, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM*:

Plaintiff-Appellant Twila J. Vassar appeals the district

court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee

Baxter Healthcare Corp. (Baxter) based on a determination that,

inter alia, Vassar had no employment contract with Baxter, and thus

she was an at-will employee. We have reviewed de novo the facts of

this case in light of the legal arguments proffered in the briefs
2

by able counsel for the parties. Additionally, we have considered

the exhaustive study of Mississippi's at-will employment law set

forth in the district court's opinion together with its wellreasoned legal analysis and conclusions, and are satisfied from our

review that the district court's grant of summary judgment

dismissing Vassar's action should be, and therefore, in every

respect, is 

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6800

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. ROBERTO ANTOINE DARDEN, a/k/a Dizz

- e, a/k/a Javon,
Defendant

- Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (4:11

- cr
- 00052

- AWA

- LRL

- 1; 4:14

- cv
- 00136

- AWA)

Submitted: December 20, 2019 Dec ided: January 30, 2020
Before DIAZ, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roberto Antoine Darden, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Roberto Antoine Darden seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (1)(B). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Id . § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that re asonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When
the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Darden has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Darden’s motion for counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions ar e adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
ex10-51.htm


Exhibit 10.51




 


April 22, 2011


EXTENSION N4 TO THE


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT OF AUGUST 1, 2004







By and between Siberian Energy Group Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), and David Zaikin (“Employee”) entered into this 22nd day of April, 2011, and made effective as of January 1, 2011.







WHEREAS the Company and the Employee previously signed the Employment Agreement, which stated the term of employment to start on August 1, 2004 and to end on December 31, 2008 (the “Agreement”, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A), and subsequent extensions for the year 2009 and 2010 till December 31, 2010;







AND WHEREAS the Company and the Employee wish to further extend the term of the employment agreement;







NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH, that the Company and the Employee agree as follows:







Point 4 “Term” of the employment Agreement to be revised and the term of the Agreement to be extended until December 31, 2011 (the “Extended Term”).







Point 5.1 “Compensation” of the employment Agreement to be revised and annual salary of the Employee to be stated as US$180,000.







Point 6 “Stock Option” of the employment Agreement is to be removed. A new Stock Option agreement will be entered into between the Company and the Employee upon the resolution of the Board of directors of the Company.







All other provisions of the Employment Agreement dated August 1, 2004 shall remain in full force and effect until the expiration of the Extended Term.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this agreement to be executed the day and year first above written.













	
EMPLOYEE

	
COMPANY


	  	  
	  	  
	/s/ David Zaikin	/s/ Elena Pochapski
	
David Zaikin

	
Elena Pochapski


	
71 Woodchester Crt,

	
CFO


	
Thornhill, ON, L4J 7V6

	
Siberian Energy Group Inc.


	
Canada