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

September 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-1940

SAR Communications, LLC: 

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 

47236 (‘September 18 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 

pre-publication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/%2416_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September_2019.pdf. 

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 exclusion notice. The scope of the exclusion is governed by the scope of the 10-digit HTSUS 

subheadings and product descriptions in the annex to the product exclusion notice, and not by the 

product descriptions set out in any particular request for exclusion. 

In accordance with the September 18 notice, the exclusion applies as of the August 23, 

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
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 27, 2021

s0120 

# Order

Clerk January 27, 2021

161243

PEOPLE OF THE STATE O F MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 161243

COA: 339020

Monroe CC: 16

- 243183

- FH

SHANE JEREMY HAWKINS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of September 8, 2020, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer

the application for leave to appeal the March 3, 2020 judgment of the Court of Appeals.

On order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to

appeal is again considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argum ent on the

application. MCR 7.305(H)(1).

The appellant shall file a supplemental brief within 42 days of the date of this

order addressing whether there is a reasonable probability that, but for trial defense

counsel’s failure to object to Detective Bocz ar’s testimony, the outcome of this trial

would have been different. Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 694 (1984). In

addition to the brief, the appellant shall electronically file an appendix conforming to

MCR 7.312(D)(2). In the brief, citations to the record must provide the appendix page

numbers as required by MCR 7.312(B)(1). The appellee shall file a supplemental brief

within 21 days of being served with the appellant’s brief. The appellee shall also

electronically file an appendix, or in the alternative, stipulate to the use of the appendix

filed by the appellant. A reply, if any, must be filed by the appellant within 14 days of

being served with the appellee’s brief. The parties should not submit mere restatements

of their application paper s.

The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys

Association of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups

interested in the determination of the issue presented in this case may move the Court f or

permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Karanya Marquise Dudley, Appellant

No. 06-23-00050-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the County Court at Law of 

Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

22M0547CCL). Memorandum Opinion 

delivered by Chief Justice Stevens, Justice 

van Cleef and Justice Rambin participating. 

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Karanya Marquise Dudley, has adequately indicated her

inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED NOVEMBER 15, 2023

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### Brendon E. ROGERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 65913.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 14, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 20, 1995.

Application to Transfer Denied April 25, 1995.

David C. Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., GRIMM, C.J., and CRAHAN, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Brendon E. Rogers (“Defendant”) appeals from the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

We have reviewed the record and find the judgment of the motion court is based on findings that are not clearly erroneous. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prec-edential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4127 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4127

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to address disclosures by 
  directors, officers, and principal stockholders of foreign private 
                    issuers, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 3, 2022

  Mr. Kennedy introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to address disclosures by 
  directors, officers, and principal stockholders of foreign private 
                    issuers, 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 ``Holding Foreign Insiders Accountable 
Act''.

SEC. 2. DISCLOSURES BY DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, AND PRINCIPAL STOCKHOLDERS.

    (a) In General.--Section 16(a)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78p(a)(1)) is amended by inserting ``(including any 
such security of a foreign private issuer, as that term is defined in 
section 240.3b-4 of title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, or any 
successor regulation)'' after ``pursuant to section 12''.
    (b) Effect on Regulation.--If any provision of section 240.3a12-
3(b) of title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor 
regulation, is inconsistent with the amendment made by subsection (a), 
that provision of such section 240.3a12-3(b) (or such successor) shall 
have no force or effect.
    (c) Issuance or Amendment of Regulations.--Not later than 90 days 
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Securities and Exchange 
Commission shall issue final regulations (or amend existing regulations 
of the Commission) to carry out the amendment made by subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
In connection with the Quarterly Report of Payless ShoeSource, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/Afor the period ending July 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven J. Douglass, Chairman of the Board and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 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 SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and
(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.    Date: June 7, 2005   /s/ Steven J. Douglass Steven J. Douglass Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
47. Vitro International Services Corporation48. Vitro Chemicals, Fibers and Mining, Inc., (Texas)49. Vitro Global, Ltd.,(Switzerland)50. Vidrio Plano, S.A. de C.V., (México)51. Distribuidora de Vidrio y Cristal, S.A. de C.V., (México)52. Vidrio Plano Mexicali, S.A. de C.V., (México)53. Vitemco Venezuela, S.A., (Venezuela)54. Vitro Panama, S.A. (Panama)55. Vitemco Ecuador, S.A., (México)56. Cristales Automotrices, S.A. de C.V. (México)57. Cristales y Servicios, S.A. de C.V.58. Vidrio y Cristal del Noroeste, S.A. de C.V. (México)59. Vitro Chaves- Indústria de Vidrio, S.A. (Portugal)60. Vitro Cristalglass, S.L. (Spain)61. IP Vitro Vidrio y Cristal, Ltd (Switzerland)62. Empresas Comegua, S.A., (Panama)63. Tecnología Vitro Vidrio y Cristal, Ltd. (Switzerland)64. Servicios Vitro Cosmos, S.A. de C.V. (México)65. Servicios Vidriera Guadalajara, S.A. de C.V. (México)66. Servicios Vidriera Los Reyes, S.A. de C.V. (México)67. Servicios Vidriera Querétaro, S.A. de C.V. (México)68. Servicios Vidriera Toluca, S.A. de C.V. (México)69. Vau, S.A. de C.V. (México)70. Productos de Valor Agregado en Cristal, S.A. de C.V. (México)71. Grupo Sordo Noriega, S.A. de C.V. (México)72. Productos de Valor Agregado en Cristal del Sureste, S.A. de C.V. (México)73. Viqueretanos, S.A. de C.V. (México)
**Exhibit
10.12**
 **OPTION
AGREEMENT**
 
 
 This
Option Agreement evidences the grant of a stock option (the "Option") to
purchase shares of common stock, par value $.001 (the "Company Stock"), of
Generex Biotechnology Corporation (the "Company") granted to **Mark
Fletcher** (the
"Optionee") pursuant to the Generex Biotechnology Corporation 2001 Stock Option
Plan (the “Plan”), a copy of which is attached to this Option Agreement and
incorporated into this Option Agreement by reference. The Option is subject to
the terms, conditions, limitations and restrictions set forth in the Plan,
including the following:
 
 a.  The date
of grant of the Option is **April
5, 2005** and the
number of shares of Company Stock that may be purchased upon exercise of the
Option is **470,726
(Four Hundred Seventy Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty Six )** .
 
 b.  The
purchase price (the “Exercise Price”) of Company Stock subject to the Option is
 **$0.001** per
share.
 
 c.  The
Option is fully vested upon issuance.
 
 d.  Unless
sooner terminated pursuant to the Plan, the Option shall terminate on **April
4, 2010.** Option
will survive the termination of the Optionee’s employment.
 
 e.  The
Optionee shall pay the Exercise Price for the Option (i) in cash or (ii) by such
other method as may be approved by the Compensation Committee of the Company’s
Board of Directors. The Optionee shall pay the amount of any withholding tax due
at the time of exercise, as provided in the Plan.
 
 f.  The
rights and interests of the Optionee under this Option Agreement may not be
sold, assigned, encumbered or otherwise transferred, except, in the event of the
death of the Optionee, by will or by the laws of descent and
distribution.
 
 g.  Any
notice to the Company, including notice of exercise of an Option, shall be
addressed to the Company in care of Slava Jarnitskii at the Company’s principal
offices.
 
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this Option Agreement has been executed on behalf of the
Company by a duly authorized officer and by the Optionee effective as of the
date of grant of the Option.


GENEREX BIOTECHNOLOGY
      CORPORATION
    
    
    ACCEPTED AND AGREED:By:
    /s/ Rose C. Perri
    
    
    /s/
      Mark FletcherROSE C. PERRI
    
    
    Mark
Fletcher
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4119 

AN ACT 

To reauthorize the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 4119 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘RECA Extension Act 

3 of 2022’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE RADIATION EXPOSURE 

5 COMPENSATION ACT. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3(d) of the Radiation Ex7 posure Compensation Act (Public Law 101–426; 42 

8 U.S.C. 2210 note) is amended— 

9 (1) by striking the first sentence and inserting 

10 ‘‘The Fund shall terminate on the date that is 2 

11 years after the date of enactment of the RECA Ex12 tension Act of 2022.’’; and 

13 (2) by striking ‘‘22-year period’’ and inserting 

14 ‘‘2-year period’’. 

15 (b) LIMITATION ON CLAIMS.—Section 8(a) of the Ra16 diation Exposure Compensation Act (Public Law 101– 

17 426; 42 U.S.C. 2210 note) is amended by striking ‘‘within 

18 22 years after the date of the enactment of the Radiation 

19 Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 2000’’ and 

20 inserting ‘‘not later than 2 years after the date of enact21 ment of the RECA Extension Act of 2022’’. 

Passed the Senate April 28, 2022. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4119 

AN ACT 

To reauthorize the Radiation Exposure 

Compensation Act.
3XEOLF9HUVLRQRI%&,

3803&+$0%(5&$67,1*35(6685(&217$,1,1*67$,1/(6667((/



3,$==$52%(57

35,&(3803&203$1<

2WKHU

12

&RQWDLQV%&,


12

12

 .*



,03257,1*7+,63$57)520&+,1$&2676
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-2018-0025-2761

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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v *465Fermin Flores, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered July 12, 1985, convicting him of attempted murder in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant and the codefendant Stephen Williams were tried together for the robbery and shooting of Police Officer Presley Mazone on April 10, 1984, at about 10:30 p.m., while he was waiting for a train on the Van Siclen Avenue IRT subway platform in Brooklyn, on his way to work.

The defendant and Williams, neither of whom testified at trial, made oral and videotaped statements to law enforcement officials which were introduced at trial. We have already considered Williams’s appeal, and under the principles enunciated in *Cruz v New York*(481 US 186, *on remand*70 NY2d 733), we reversed and ordered a new trial *(People v Williams,*141 AD2d 786).

In *People v Williams (supra),*we noted that Williams’s statements were more limited in scope than those of the defendant. Williams’s statements merely placed the defendant at the scene and indicated that Williams was the major participant in the robbery and shooting. Since we conclude that there was no reasonable possibility that Williams’s statements contributed to the conviction of this defendant, the error in admitting the statements was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, Harrington v California,*395 US 250; *People v Smalls,*55 NY2d 407, 415; *People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 241-242; *People v Williams,*136 AD2d 581; *People v McCain,*134 AD2d 287).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant knew or should have known that the victim was a police officer. The evidence established that during the altercation Officer Mazone’s police shield was revealed, he announced "Police”, and he drew his service revolver. Moreover, upon seeing the police shield, the officer testified that the defendant exclaimed, "He’s a cop, pop him”. We find that this evidence was legally sufficient to satisfy the elements necessary to sustain a conviction for attempted murder in the first degree *(see,*Penal Law § 125.27; *People v Woods,*141 AD2d 684).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions, *466including those raised in his supplemental *pro se*brief, and find them to be without merit. Lawrence, J. P., Kunzeman, Hooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 2571]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-581]



========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 1995 / 
Notices
[[Page 2571]]

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Agency Form Under Review by the Office of Management and Budget

    DOC has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 
clearance the following proposal for collection of information under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
    Agency: Technology Administration.
    Title: Foreign Science and Technical Information Survey.
    Form Number(s): NA.
    Agency Approval Number: NA.
    Type of Request: New collection.
    Burden: 80 hours.
    Number of Respondents: 80.
    Avg Hours Per Response: 1 hour.
    Needs and Uses: The purpose of this survey is to determine how best 
to meet the foreign scientific and technical information needs of U.S. 
business and industry through gaining a better understanidng of how 
U.S. firms use such information.
    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit organizations.
    Frequency: One time.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    OMB Desk Officer: Maya A. Bernstein, (202) 395-3785.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Gerald Tache, DOC Forms Clearance Officer, (202) 
482-3271, Department of Commerce, room 5312, 14th and Constitution 
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Maya A. Bernstein, OMB Desk Officer, room 
10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    Dated: January 5, 1995.
Gerald Tache,
Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office of Management and 
Organization.
[FR Doc. 95-581 Filed 1-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-CW-F
Presidential Documents

14199

Federal Register

Vol. 60, No. 50

Wednesday, March 15, 1995

Title 3—

The President

Executive Order 12956 of March 13, 1995

Israel-United States Binational Industrial Research and Development

Foundation

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the

laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International

Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and having found that the

Israel-United States Binational Industrial Research and Development Foundation is a public international organization in which the United States participates within the meaning of the International Organizations Immunities

Act, I hereby designate the Israel-United States Binational Industrial Research

and Development Foundation as a public international organization entitled

to enjoy the privileges, exemptions, and immunities conferred by the International Organizations Immunities Act. This designation is not intended

to abridge in any respect the privileges, exemptions, or immunities that

such organization may have acquired or may acquire by international agree-

[FR Doc. 95–6588

ments or by congressional action.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

March 13, 1995.

œ–

Filed 3–14–95; 9:18 am]

Billing code 3195–01–P
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-2018-0025-2562

Primex Family of Companies:

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