alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Cereal Disease Lab: St. Paul, MN
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Cereal Rust Bulletins
                    PublicationsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area St. Paul, Minnesota Cereal Disease Lab Research





- ARS National Programs
- Search for a scientific manuscript
- Search for a research project
- ARS Software
- Programs and Projects
- Collaborations
- Subjects of Investigation
- Publications

Research Projects Subjects of Investigation at this LocationEach ARS research project has related subjects of investigation.  Listed below are the subjects of investigation currently conducted at this location.
Clicking on a subject of investigation will list the research projects within that  subject of investigation.


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 46 (Thursday, March 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 12944]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5739]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP95-190-000]


Williams Natural Gas Co.; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas 
Tariff

March 3, 1995.
    Take notice that Williams Natural Gas Company (WNG), on March 1, 
1995, tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with a proposed 
effective date of March 31, 1995:

Fourth Revised Sheet No. 9
Third Revised Sheet No. 10

    WNG states that this filing is being made pursuant to Section 4 of 
the Natural Gas Act and Article 14 of the General Terms and Conditions 
of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, WNG proposes to 
recover approximately $1.2 million in unrecovered purchased gas costs. 
As provided in Article 14.1, WNG proposes to direct bill such amount to 
parties who were customers under WNG's former Rate Schedules F, PR(A), 
PR(B) and P on May 18, 1992 based on each customer's purchases as a 
percentage of total purchases by all customers under the above rate 
schedules during the twelve-month period ending September 30, 1993. 
Each customer's allocated amount is shown on Sheet Nos. 9 and 10. WNG 
proposes that payment be made in a lump sum or over an amortization 
period of no more than 36 months as provided by WNG's tariff, with 
interest determined pursuant to Section 154.67(c) of the Commission's 
regulations.
    WNG states that a copy of its filing was served on all 
jurisdictional customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests should 
be filed on or before March 10, 1995. Protests will be considered by 
the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but 
will not serve to make the protestants parties to the proceeding. Any 
person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. 
Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available 
for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-5739 Filed 3-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
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-2018-0025-3184

Teradyne, 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
**Exhibit 3.6**

**AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AMENDED AND RESTATED BYLAWS**

**OF**

**JARDEN CORPORATION**

Pursuant to an action of the Boardof Directors of Jarden Corporation, adopted by Unanimous Written Consent in lieu of a meeting pursuant to the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware on February 23, 2009, Article Seven of the Amended and Restated Bylaws of JardenCorporation is hereby amended by deleting Section F thereof in its entirety and replacing it with the following: 

**Section F.Enforceability.** The provisions of this Article Seven shall be applicable to all proceedings commenced after its adoption, whether such proceedings arise out of events, acts, omissions or circumstances which occurred or existed prior orsubsequent to such adoption. The rights conferred upon any person who serves or agrees to serve in any capacity which entitles him or her to indemnification and expense advancement under this Article Seven shall be contract rights and such rightsshall be deemed to have vested in such person upon commencement of such service and shall continue as to any such person who has ceased to serve in such capacity, and shall inure to the benefit of such person’s heirs, executors andadministrators. Any amendment, alteration, repeal or other modification of this Article Seven (including this Section F) that adversely affects any right of any person who serves or agrees to serve in any capacity which entitles him or her toindemnification and expense advancement under this Article Seven (or adversely affects any right of any such person’s heirs, executors and administrators under this Article Seven (including this Section F)) shall be prospective only and,without limiting, and in furtherance of, the foregoing, any amendment, alteration, repeal or other modification of this Article Seven (including this Section F) or the DGCL or any other applicable law shall not eliminate or limit any rights ofindemnification and expense advancement then existing or arising out of events, acts, omissions or circumstances occurring or existing prior to such amendment, alteration, repeal or other modification, including, without limitation, the right toindemnification and expense advancement for proceedings commenced after such amendment, alteration, repeal or other modification to enforce the provisions of this Article Seven (including this Section F) with regard to events, acts, omissions orcircumstances occurring or existing prior to such amendment, alteration, repeal or other modification. 

Adopted andeffective as of February 23, 2009.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PHILIP ROGERS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

 v.

DEBBIE ASUNCION, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 18-55102

D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00901-JC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Jacqueline Chooljian, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted September 11, 2019

Pasadena, California

Before: RAWLINSON, IKUTA, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

FILED

SEP 20 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Philip Rogers appeals the district court’s decision to deny his petition for a

writ of habeas corpus.1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253.

Rogers failed to establish that his trial counsel rendered ineffective

assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). 

Even if Rogers’s trial counsel had introduced evidence that Mary Webster had .28

micrograms per milliliter of cocaine in her system at the time of the accident, there

is not a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been

different, given the jury was presented with evidence that Rogers had a high level

of intoxication at the time of the incident, was driving with a revoked license over

the speed limit, and had prior convictions for both driving under the influence of

alcohol and driving while having 0.08% alcohol or more in his blood. Further

supporting this conclusion, Rogers failed to introduce evidence that the cocaine in

Ms. Webster’s system had any intoxicating effect, and the video footage of the

incident presented to the jury did not show that Ms. Webster’s movements at the

time of the incident indicated intoxication. Because we conclude on de novo

review that Rogers failed to show that any deficient performance of trial counsel

1

 We grant Rogers’s motions to take judicial notice of a Google map

depicting the intersection where the events at issue took place and to transmit to the

Court and take judicial notice of a video of the accident introduced during Rogers’s

trial in state court. See McCormack v. Hiedeman, 694 F.3d 1004, 1008 n.1 (9th

Cir. 2012); Harris v. Cty. of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 2012).

2
prejudiced the defense, we need not reach the question whether we afford AEDPA

deference to the state court’s decision. See Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370,

389 (2010).

AFFIRMED.

3
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-2018-0025-3706

JLG 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 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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

April 12, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4163

Apex Sourcing & Manufacturing: 

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

_04.15.19.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,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
3XEOLF9HUVLRQRI%&,

3803,03(//(5&$67,1*35(6685(&217$,1,1*6667$,1/(6667((/



3,$==$52%(57

35,&(3803&203$1<

2WKHU

12

3XEOLF9HUVLRQRI%&,


12

12

 .*



,03257,1*7+,63$57)520&+,1$&2676
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6984** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ROY KNIGHT, a/k/a Little Roy , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. James R. Spencer , Senior District Judge. ( 3:03

- cr - 00163

- JRS

- 1 )

Submitted : November 22, 2016 Decided: November 28, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Roy Knight, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Eugene Anthony, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not bin ding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Roy Knight appeals the district court’s order denying his
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction.
We have reviewed the recor d and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for th e reasons stated by the district

court. United States v. Knight , No. 3:03

- cr - 00163

- JRS

- 1 (E.D.

Va. July 6 , 201 6 ). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argume nt would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
1 Judge Alvin B. Rubin was a member of the original panel which

heard this case but he died on June 11, 1991. This matter is being handled by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

2 M ississippi Et Al v. Louisiana Et Al ,

___ U.S. ___, 113 S. Ct. 542 (1992). UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 90-1031

_____________________________________ JULIA DONELSON HOUSTON, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, VERSUS

RUTH M. THOMAS, ET AL., Defendants, STATE OF LOUISIANA and LAKE PROVIDENCE PORT COMMISSION, Intervening Defendants-Appellants.

______________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

______________________________________________________ ON REMAND FROM THE THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

(February 12, 1993) Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judge 1

.
PER CURIAM:

As directed by the Supreme Court 2
, this matter is remanded to

the district court which shall dismiss the claims of Louisiana
against Mississippi for lack of jurisdiction, and which shall
proceed to determine the claims of the private litigants.

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
Exhibit 99.1



REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



Board of Directors

Killbuck Bancshares, Inc.



We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Killbuck
Bancshares, Inc., and its consolidated subsidiary as of June 30, 2005, and the related consolidated statements of income for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, and the consolidated statement of changes in
shareholders equity for the six-month period ended June 30, 2005 and the consolidated statement of cash flows for the six-month periods ended June 30, 2005 and 2004. These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the
Companys management.



We conducted our review in accordance with
standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial
and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial
statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.



Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.



We have previously audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2004, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders equity, and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein); and in
our report dated February 9, 2005 we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements.



|                        
|------------------------
|/s/ S.R. SNODGRASS, A.C.
|S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.    
|Steubenville, Ohio      
|August 5, 2005
#### Ronald L. SATTERLEE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, State of Missouri and Douglas County, Missouri, Respondents.

Nos. 18639 to 18641.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two.

Sept. 7, 1993.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Sept. 24, 1993.

*366Ronald L. Satterlee, pro se.

Gary R. Allen, William S. Estabrook, Janet A. Bradley, John T. McGuire, Dept, of Justice, Tax Div., Washington, DC (Michael A. Jones, U.S. Atty., Springfield, of counsel), for U.S.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Carole Lewis lies, Gretchen Garrison Hunter, Asst. Attys. Gen., and Michael L. Paup, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for State of MO.

Daniel P. Wade, Pros. Atty., Douglas County, Ava, for Douglas County.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant filed three separate actions seeking “declaratory judgment”. The trial court dismissed each petition “for failure to state a cause of action”. Appellant has filed a separate brief in each of these causes and upon submission the causes were consolidated.

Appellant’s briefs fall well short of complying with Rule 84.04 which recites the form and content necessary for a brief in this court. Neither the statement of facts, points relied on, nor argument comply with Rule 84.04. By not substantially complying with Rule 84.04, appellant preserves nothing for appellate review. *Simpson v. Galena R-2 School Dist.,*809 S.W.2d 457 (Mo.App.1991); *Federbush v. Federbush,*667 S.W.2d 457, 458 (Mo.App.1984); *Pillow v. Sayad,*655 S.W.2d 816 (Mo.App.1983).

All parties, whether or not represented by an attorney, are bound by the same rules of procedure. *Johnson v. St. Mary’s Health Center,*738 S.W.2d 534, 535 (Mo.App.1987). When an appellant’s brief fails to identify wherein and why the trial court erred, plain error review under Rule 84.13(c) is not appropriate. *Arenson v. Arenson,*787 S.W.2d 845, 846 (Mo.App.1990). It is not the function of this court to search the record to identify possible errors and to research issues so revealed. *Id.*Appellant’s briefs fail to preserve anything for appellate review.

All pending motions are now denied as moot. The appeals are dismissed.

All concur.
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Ventress L. SMITH, Defendant/Appellant. Ventress L. SMITH, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Nos. 60247, 62765.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Sept. 14, 1993.

John Klosterman, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen,, Jennifer A. Glaney, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was charged by information and convicted by a jury of first degree robbery and armed criminal action. He was sentenced by the court as a prior and persistent offender to concurrent twenty-five year pris*391on terms. His Rule 29.15 motion was denied after an evidentiary hearing. He appeals the conviction and the denial of his post-conviction motion. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit; the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).