alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 17, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 8101]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03382]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Parole Commission


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., January 26, 2016.

PLACE: U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE., 3rd Floor, Washington, 
DC.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Approval of October 6, 2015 minutes.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jacqueline Graham, Staff Assistant 
to the Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE., 3rd Floor, 
Washington, D.C . 20530, (202) 346-7010.

    Dated: January 15, 2016.
J. Patricia W. Smoot,
Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission.
[FR Doc. 2016-03382 Filed 2-12-16; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 4410-31-P
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-1917

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 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
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4196 

To amend the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama and Coushatta Indian 

Tribes of Texas Restoration Act to restore an opportunity for Tribal 

economic development on terms that are equal and fair, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 12, 2022 

Mr. HEINRICH (for himself and Mr. TESTER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama and 

Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act to 

restore an opportunity for Tribal economic development 

on terms that are equal and fair, 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 ‘‘Ysleta del Sur Pueblo 

5 and Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas Equal and Fair 

6 Opportunity Act’’. 

2 

•S 4196 IS

1 SEC. 2. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. 

2 The Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama and 

3 Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act (Public 

4 Law 100–89; 101 Stat. 666) is amended by adding at the 

5 end the following: 

6 ‘‘TITLE III—RULE OF 

7 CONSTRUCTION 

8 ‘‘SEC. 301. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. 

9 ‘‘Nothing in this Act precludes or limits the applica10 bility of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 

11 2701 et seq.).’’. 

Æ
****

**MOTOR MODEL: RS360/RS365**

# image1.jpeg

# image2.jpeg

# image3.jpeg

# image4.png

# image5.png
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICEROF PREMIERE GLOBAL SERVICES, INC.PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Annual Report of Premiere Global Services, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Boland T. Jones, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

| (1)    | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                 |
| (2)    | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

|     | /s/ Boland T. Jones                                                                   |
|--------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                    | Boland T. JonesChief Executive OfficerPremiere Global Services, Inc.February 27, 2009 |

----
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Pierre Jean Jacques Renelique, as Assignee of NYEMMA WICKAM, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Carmen R. Velasquez, J.), entered January 13, 2014. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, and defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that it had timely and properly denied the claim at issue based upon plaintiff's failure to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). By order entered January 13, 2014, the Civil Court granted defendant's motion.</p><p>As plaintiff argues, defendant's moving papers failed to establish that the first EUO scheduling letter defendant sent to plaintiff was timely, as defendant stated that the letter was sent 35 days after defendant had received the claim (<a href="../2015/2015_51220.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Neptune Med. Care, P.C. v Ameriprise Auto &amp; Home Ins.</i>, 48 Misc 3d 139</a>[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51220[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2015]; <a href="../2015/2015_50476.htm" target="_blank"><i>O &amp; M Med., P.C. v Travelers Indem. Co.</i>, 47 Misc 3d 134</a>[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50476[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2015]). Consequently, defendant failed to demonstrate that it had properly and timely denied the claim based upon plaintiff's failure to comply with a condition precedent to coverage (<a href="../2006/2006_09604.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.</i>, 35 AD3d 720</a> [2006] [appearance at an EUO is a condition precedent to coverage]).</p><p>Accordingly, the order is reversed and defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied.</p><p>Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.</p><br>Decision Date: October 13, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
#### N. B. MARRINER, Guardian of H. W. MIZZELLE, a Lunatic, v. H. W. MIZZELLE, a Lunatic, Appearing by His Guardian Ad Litem, W. D. PRUDEN, and Others.

(Filed 20 September, 1933.)

Rarties B b: Guardian and Ward H a — Surety on guardian’s bond held proper party and motion for its joinder was addressed to court’s discretion.

Tlie guardian of a lunatic brought action to have certain funds lost on account of the insolvency of his bank of deposit declared a credit to the lunatic’s estate, alleging that the loss of the funds was not occasioned by negligence. Defendants answered denying this allegation, and moved that the surety on the guardian’s bond be made a party. *Held,*the answer failed to allege a breach of the bond and the surety was a proper party at most, and the motion for its joinder was addressed to the discretion of the court, and the court’s action in refusing the motion is not reviewable.

Appeal by W. D. Pruden, guardian *ad litem*and others, from *Small, J.,*at Chambers, in Elizabeth City, N. 0., on 18 February, 1933. From Ci-iowaN.

Dismissed.

This proceeding was begun by petition filed by the plaintiff with the clerk of the Superior Court of Chowan County, and was transferred by said clerk to the civil issue docket of said court for the trial of issues raised by the pleadings.

On the facts alleged in his petition, the plaintiff prayed for an order allowing him as guardian credit for certain sums of money which he had deposited as guardian in certain banks, and which had been lost by *205reáson of the subsequent insolvency of said banks. He alleged that said loss was not due to any negligence on his part. This allegation was denied by the defendants, who were made parties to the proceeding on motion of the plaintiff.

The proceeding was heard on the motion of the defendants that the surety on the guardian bond of the plaintiff be made a party to the proceeding. The motion was denied. The defendants excepted and appealed to the Supreme Court.

*Ward & Grimes for plaintiff.*

*W. D. Pruden and J. A.. Pritchett for defendants.*

Pes Cukiak.

It does not appear from the pleadings in this proceeding that the surety on the bond filed by plaintiff as guardian is a necessary party to this proceeding. It is not alleged in the answer filed by the defendants that there has been a breach of the bond. At most the surety is only a proper party. The motion of the defendants that the surety be made a party was addressed to the discretion of the court. McIntosh N. C. Practice & Procedure, page 185. For this reason, the refusal of the court to- allow the motion is not reviewable by this Court. The appeal by the defendants is

Dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 48 (Monday, March 13, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 13513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6243]



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


FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m. March 20, 1995.

PLACE: 4th Floor, Conference Room, 1250 H Street, N.W., Washington, 
D.C.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:


    1. Approval of the minutes of the February 21, 1995, Board 
meeting.
    2. Thrift Savings Plan activity report by the Executive 
Director.


CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Tom Trabucco, Director, Office of 
External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.


    Dated: March 8, 1995.
Roger W. Mehle,
Executive Director, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
[FR Doc. 95-6243 Filed 3-9-95; 2:24 pm]
BILLING CODE 6760-01-M
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-2018-0025-2324

Reelcraft Industries:

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,

Stephen P. Vaughn
EXHIBIT 11
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

The Company has computed and presented  earnings per share ("EPS") in accordance
with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 128.  Reconciliation of the
numerators and the  denominators of the basic and diluted per share  computation
for net income are as follows:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                (amounts in thousands, except per share data)
                                                                                 (unaudited)

                                                                    Income         Shares         Per-Share
                                                                  (Numerator)   (Denominator)      Amount
                                                                  -----------   -------------      ------
<S>                                                                  <C>             <C>           <C>
Three months ended March 31, 2006
   Basic EPS
      Net income and income available to common stockholders         $1,147          1,683         $  .68
      Effect of dilutive securities, options                                             0
                                                                                    ------

   Diluted EPS
      Income available to common stockholders and assumed
         conversions                                                 $1,147          1,683         $  .68
                                                                     ======         ======

Three months ended March 31, 2005
   Basic EPS
      Net income and income available to common stockholders         $1,329          1,682         $  .79
      Effect of dilutive securities, options                                             0
                                                                                    ------
   Diluted EPS
      Income available to common stockholders and assumed
         conversions                                                 $1,329          1,682         $  .79
                                                                     ======        ======
</TABLE>
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUD GMENT RENDERED MAY 2, 2017

NO. 03

- 16

- 00526

- CR

Anthony Tucker, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 6 OF TRAVIS COUNTY
BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON, AND GOODW IN
AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the trial

court’s judgment . Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of conviction

. Because

appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4252 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4252

To terminate duties and other restrictions on the importation of infant 
                    formula, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 May 18 (legislative day, May 17), 2022

   Mr. Paul introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To terminate duties and other restrictions on the importation of infant 
                    formula, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Freedom to Import Infant Formula Act 
of 2022''.

SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF DUTIES AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS ON IMPORTATION OF 
              INFANT FORMULA.

    (a) Duty-Free Treatment of Infant Formula.--On and after the date 
of the enactment of this Act, infant formula classified under heading 
1901.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States shall 
enter the United States free of duty and free of quantitative 
limitation.
    (b) Importation of Infant Formula Legal for Sale in Certain 
Countries.--
            (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
        law, with respect to infant formula from a country described in 
        paragraph (2)--
                    (A) U.S. Customs and Border Protection may not 
                seize or otherwise enforce restrictions on the 
                importation of such formula if such formula would meet 
                the legal requirements for sale in that country; and
                    (B) such formula is deemed to be in compliance with 
                the requirements under section 412 of the Federal Food, 
                Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 350a).
            (2) Country described.--A country described in this 
        paragraph is any of the following:
                    (A) Australia.
                    (B) Canada.
                    (C) Israel.
                    (D) Japan.
                    (E) New Zealand.
                    (F) The United Kingdom.
                    (G) A member country of the European Union.
                    (H) A member country of the European Economic Area.
    (c) Infant Formula Defined.--In this section, the term ``infant 
formula'' has the meaning given that term in section 201(z) of the 
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(z)).
                                 <all>
```
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-2018-0025-2794

Faurecia US Holdings:

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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 13, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2113

Ardagh Group:

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
#### FRED CARTER, by His Next Friend, F. O. CARTER, v. WAYNE BAILEY.

*(Filed 6*May, 1942.)

Automobiles § 19—

Ordinarily, a gratuitous passenger is not entitled to recover for injuries sustained while attempting to get on the moving vehicle.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Bone, J.,*at November Term, 1941, of Columbus.

Civil action to recover for personal injuries allegedly received by plaintiff while in act of boarding a moving truck of defendant resulting from actionable negligence of employee of defendant. Defendant denies (1) authority of his employee to invite plaintiff to ride, and (2) negligence of his employee in operation of truck, and pleads contributory negligence of plaintiff.

From judgment as of nonsuit at close of all the evidence plaintiff appeals to Supreme Court and assigns error.

*E. M. Toon and Varser, McIntyre & Henry for plaintiff, appellant.*

*A. B. Brady and Tucker & Proctor for defendant, appellee.*

Per Curiam.

If it should be conceded that there is evidence of negligence, and of authority of the employee of defendant, *Hayes v. Creamery Co.,*195 N. C., 113, 141 S. E., 340, plaintiff, by his own testimony, brings himself within the general applicable rule that passengers who are injured while attempting to get on or off a moving train cannot recover for injury. *Browne v. R. R.,*108 N. C., 34, 12 S. E., 958; *Carter v. R. R.,*165 N. C., 244, 81 S. E., 321; *Stamey v. R. R.,*208 N. C., 668, 182 S. E., 130; *Wingate v. R. R.,*220 N. C., 251, 17 S. E. (2d), 6.

Affirmed.