alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4123 

To require a report on Federal support of the cybersecurity of commercial 

satellite systems, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 2, 2022 

Mr. OSSOFF introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To require a report on Federal support of the cybersecurity 

of commercial satellite systems, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Enhancing Satellite 

5 Cybersecurity Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITION. 

7 In this Act, the term ‘‘commercial satellite system’’ 

8 means an earth satellite owned and operated by a non9 Federal entity. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4123 IS

1 SEC. 3. REPORT ON COMMERCIAL SATELLITE CYBERSECU2 RITY. 

3 Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment 

4 of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States 

5 shall report to Congress on the actions the Federal Gov6 ernment has taken to support the cybersecurity of com7 mercial satellite systems, which shall include information 

8 on— 

9 (1) the extent to which Federal agencies are re10 liant on commercial satellite systems owned wholly 

11 or in part or controlled by foreign entities, and how 

12 Federal agencies mitigate associated cybersecurity 

13 risks; and 

14 (2) the extent to which Federal agencies are re15 liant on commercial satellite systems with physical 

16 structures, such as satellite ground control systems, 

17 in foreign countries, and how Federal agencies miti18 gate associated cybersecurity risks. 

19 SEC. 4. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CYBERSECURITY AND 

20 INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY AGENCY. 

21 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the Cybersecurity 

22 and Infrastructure Security Agency shall consolidate vol23 untary cybersecurity recommendations designed to assist 

24 in the development, maintenance, and operation of com25 mercial satellite systems. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4123 IS

1 (b) REQUIREMENTS.—The recommendations consoli2 dated under subsection (a) shall include, to the greatest 

3 extent practicable, materials addressing the following: 

4 (1) Protection against vulnerabilities posed by 

5 ownership of commercial satellite systems or com6 mercial satellite system companies by foreign enti7 ties. 

8 (2) Protection against vulnerabilities posed by 

9 locating physical infrastructure, such as satellite 

10 ground control systems, in foreign countries. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RICARDO A. WHITING,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 329 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 31st day of October, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

August 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3627

ECM Industries LLC:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20.

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

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

request was denied because the request 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
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-93,076-01

EX PARTE SYLVESTER HALLMAN MOORE, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 15,995A IN THE 294TH DISTRICT COURT 

FROM VAN ZANDT COUNTY

YEARY, J., filed a concurring opinion in which KELLER, P.J., and SLAUGHTER, 

J., joined.

CONCURRING OPINION

In 2002, Applicant, Sylvester Hallman Moore, was convicted of murder and 

sentenced to ninety-nine years’ imprisonment. The Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed his 

conviction in 2004. Moore v. State, No. 05-03-01121-CR, 2004 WL 1832885 (Tex. App.—

Dallas Aug. 17, 2004) (not designated for publication). In 2021, Applicant filed this 

application for writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, alleging that his trial 

counsel was ineffective. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

Today, the Court remands this application to the trial court to further develop the 

record. I agree this application should be remanded, and so I join the Court’s order doing 

so. But I write separately, as I have previously, to address my thoughts concerning the 
MOORE — 2

doctrine of laches and its possible application to this case. See Ex parte Smith, 444 S.W.3d 

661 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (holding a trial court has the authority to sua sponte consider 

the doctrine of laches); Ex parte Sepeda, No. WR-92,711-01, 2021 WL 2450089 (Tex. 

Crim. App. June 16, 2021) (per curiam) (not designated for publication) (Yeary, J., 

concurring) (reviewing Ex parte Smith’s holding and the principles that justify a trial 

court’s sua sponte authority to consider laches).

The doctrine of laches ought to be considered in a case like this one. Applicant’s 

trial occurred in 2002, but this application was not filed until nearly nineteen years later.1

In addition, the record is silent regarding circumstances that may excuse Applicant’s delay.

Consistent with this Court’s precedent, the trial court may, sua sponte, give 

Applicant the opportunity to explain the reasons for the delay. It may also give the State’s 

prosecutors and/or former counsel for Applicant an opportunity to state whether 

Applicant’s delay has caused any prejudice to their ability to defend against Applicant’s 

claims. And ultimately, the trial court may include findings of fact and conclusions of law 

concerning the doctrine of laches in its response to this Court’s remand order.

With these additional thoughts, I join the Court’s order.

FILED: September 29, 2021

DO NOT PUBLISH

1 “Our revised approach will permit courts to more broadly consider the diminished 

memories of trial participants and the diminished availability of the State's evidence, both of which 

may often be said to occur beyond five years after a conviction becomes final.” Ex parte Perez, 

398 S.W.3d 206, 216 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (citing Ex parte Steptoe, 132 S.W.3d 434, 437–39 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (Cochran, J., dissenting)).
Order filed, August 14, 2018.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-00705-CV

____________

IN THE INTEREST OF A.A.A., A CHILD, Appellant

On Appeal from the 257th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2015-50346

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due May 25, 2018. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. 

The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not 

been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Eunice Tillman, the court reporter, to file the record in this appeal 

within 15 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3419

CW Bearing USA, 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/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.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 the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 4, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 531]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-54]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
[Dept. Circ. 570, 1994--Rev., Supp. No. 5]


Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds; Change of Name; The 
Great Lakes Reinsurance Company, U.S. Branch

    The Great Lakes Reinsurance Company, U.S. Branch, a Canadian 
corporation, has formally changed its name to Great Lakes American 
Reinsurance Company, effective October 1, 1994. The Company was last 
listed as an acceptable reinsurer on Federal bonds at FR 34187, July 1, 
1994.
    A Certificate of Authority as an acceptable reinsurer on Federal 
bonds, dated today, is hereby issued under Sections 9304 to 9308 of 
Title 31 of the United States Code, to Great Lakes American Reinsurance 
Company, New York, New York. This new Certificate replaces the 
Certificate of Authority issued to the Company under its former name. 
The underwriting limitation of $5,217,000 established for the Company 
as of July 1, 1994, remains unchanged until June 30, 1995.
    Certificates of Authority expire on June 30, each year, unless 
revoked prior to that date. The Certificates are subject to subsequent 
annual renewal as long as the Company remains qualified (31 CFR part 
223). A list of qualified companies is published annually as of July 1, 
in the Department Circular 570, which outlines details as to 
understanding limitations, areas in which licensed to transact surety 
business and other information. Federal bond-approving officers should 
annotate their reference copies of the Treausry Circular 570, 1994 
Revision, at page 34187 to reflect this change.
    Questions concerning this notice may be directed to the Department 
of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Funds Management 
Division, Surety Bond Branch, Hyattsville, MD 20782, telephone (202) 
874-6602.

    Dated: December 20, 1994.
Charles F. Schwan III,
Director, Funds Management Division, Financial Management Services.
[FR Doc. 95-54 Filed 1-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 53 (Monday, March 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 14810]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6712]



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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review

ACTION: Notice of reporting requirements submitted for review.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to 
publish a notice in the Federal Register notifying the public that the 
agency has made such a submission.

DATES: Comments should be submitted on or before April 19, 1995. If you 
intend to comment but cannot prepare comments promptly, please advise 
the OMB Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the deadline.

COPIES: Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and 
other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the 
Agency Clearance Officer. Submit comments to the Agency Clearance 
Officer and the OMB Reviewer.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Agency Clearance Officer: Cleo Verbillis, Small Business 
Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416, 
Telephone: (202) 205-6629
OMB Reviewer: Donald Arbuckle, Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503
Title: Financing Eligibility Statement
Form No.: SBA Form 1941A, B, and C
Frequency: On Occasion
Description of Respondents: SBA businesses seeking financing from 
Specialized Small Business Investment Companies (SSBIC)
Annual Responses: 1,000
Annual Burden: 2,000

    Dated: March 10, 1995.
Cleo Verbillis,
Chief, Administrative Information Branch.
[FR Doc. 95-6712 Filed 3-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             932,252
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,117,663
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,304,423
<INVENTORY>                                      5,016,413
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,020,224
<PP&E>                                         110,809,937
<DEPRECIATION>                                  39,834,703
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 153,259,762
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,853,507
<BONDS>                                        105,171,833
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               244
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,430,130
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   153,259,762
<SALES>                                         33,303,845
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,303,845
<CGS>                                           25,675,791
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,751,288
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (239,450)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,969,245
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,177,238)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (317,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,860,238)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,860,238)
<EPS-BASIC>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0



</TABLE>
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3026

Northern Tool & Equipment:

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
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-50001

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ARTURO CARDOZA-PUENTE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:08-CR-2727-ALL

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Arturo Cardoza-Puente (Cardoza) pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the

United States after deportation. He was sentenced to an 80-month term of

imprisonment, within the advisory range provided by the Sentencing Guidelines.

Cardoza argues that his sentence is unreasonable because the Guidelines

overstated the seriousness of his offense and failed to take into account the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 10, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 09-50001

2

mitigating nature of his cultural assimilation and his motive for returning to the

United States.

We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of

discretion. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). Cardoza presented

his concerns at length in his written objections and at his sentencing hearing,

arguing that certain facts mitigated his guilt and that the 16-level enhancement

resulted in a unduly harsh sentencing range under § 3553(a). The Government

argued that the § 3553(a) factors supported a sentence within the guideline

range, especially given Cardoza’s lengthy criminal history and recent theft

offense. The district court listened to these arguments and found that a

sentence within the guideline range was sufficient but not greater than

necessary to achieve the goals of § 3553(a).

Because it is within the guidelines range, Cardoza’s sentence is entitled

to a presumption of reasonableness, see United States v. Campos-Maldonado,

531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 328 (2008), and Cardoza has

shown no good reason for us to disturb it. See Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597 (stating

that “the fact that the appellate court might reasonably [conclude] that a

different sentence [is] appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district

court”).

Cardoza acknowledges that two additional arguments that he raises are

foreclosed. He argues that the appellate presumption of reasonableness should

not apply because U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 lacked an empirical foundation, and that the

guidelines range reflected an unwarranted disparity between defendants who

can participate in a fast-track program and defendants who cannot. As Cardoza

concedes, we have previously rejected such claims. United States v. MondragonSantiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366 (5th Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed (June 24, 2009)

(No. 08-11099); United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 563 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 624 (2008).

AFFIRMED.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2866

Curtis Instruments, 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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2574-2575]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-476]



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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Science Board Task Force on Cost Reduction Strategies for 
V-22

ACTION: Notice of advisory committee meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on Cost Reduction 
Strategies for V-22 will meet in closed session on January 18, February 
21, and March 20, 1995 at the Pentagon, Arlington, Virginia.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology on scientific and technical matters as they affect the 
perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings the 
Task Force will address promising cost reduction strategies and their 
impact on our cost estimating methodologies. The V-22 will be the model 
and initial focus of this review.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, P.L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II, (1988)), it has 
been determined that these DSB Task Force meetings, concerns matters 
listed in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552b(c) (1) and (4) (1988), and that 
[[Page 2575]] accordingly these meetings will be closed to the public.

    Dated: January 3, 1995.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 95-476 Filed 1-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M