alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 10, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 2626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-663]



[[Page 2626]]


Postal Rate Commission

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., January 12, 1995.

PLACE: Conference Room, 1333 H Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 
20268.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: (1) Docket No. R94-1--Request for 
Reconsideration. (2) Docket No. C93-2--Pending Parcel Post Rate 
Complaint.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Charles L. Clapp, Secretary, 
Postal Rate Commission, Suite 300, 1333 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 
20268-0001, Telephone (202) 789-6840.
Charles L. Clapp
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-663 Filed 1-6-95; 2:24 pm]
BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001060426
<NAME> CENTRAL AMERICAN EQUITIES
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> US DOLLAR

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          24,022
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   47,293
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     32,169
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               119,865
<PP&E>                                       7,899,605
<DEPRECIATION>                                  43,433
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,024,271
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          486,370
<BONDS>                                        987,660
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        14,739
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,535,501
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,024,271
<SALES>                                      1,238,003
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,238,003
<CGS>                                          208,875
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,396,674
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             306,055
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (464,726)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (464,726)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (464,726)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.035)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.035)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4879 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4879

  To amend the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to specify that the trading 
 prohibition for certain Chinese issuers that retain public accounting 
 firms that have not been subject to inspection by the Public Company 
  Accounting Oversight Board shall apply after 1 year, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 25, 2023

Mr. Luetkemeyer (for himself and Mr. Sherman) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to specify that the trading 
 prohibition for certain Chinese issuers that retain public accounting 
 firms that have not been subject to inspection by the Public Company 
  Accounting Oversight Board shall apply after 1 year, 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 Chinese Listed Companies 
Accountable Act''.

SEC. 2. TRADING PROHIBITION FOR CERTAIN CHINESE ISSUERS.

    Section 104(i)(3) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 
7214(i)(3)) is amended--
            (1) in the paragraph heading, by inserting ``(or 1 year in 
        the case of a chinese company)'' after ``non-inspections''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (A), in the matter preceding clause 
        (i), by inserting ``(or 1 non-inspection year in the case of a 
        covered issuer organized under the laws of the People's 
        Republic of China)'' after ``years''.
                                 <all>
```
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4054

Tianhai Electric North America:

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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Taylor, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuffner, J.), rendered December 18, 1987, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the People failed to prove his identity as the robber of a gas station on Staten Island. Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The complainant unequivocally identified the defendant from a photographic array and from a lineup on the same day as the robbery. The record establishes that the complainant was only a short distance from the defendant when the defendant first pointed the gun *742at him. During the entire incident the complainant saw the defendant under good lighting conditions.

The defendant also contends that the complaining witness, because of his past involvement with illegal drugs and alcohol, should not have been believed by the jury. However, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental *pro se*briefs, and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 (a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating
to the registrant, including, its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over
financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance
regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements
for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
 c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and
 d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Phillip J. SmithPhillip J. SmithExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
(Principal Accounting Officer)
RECEIVED IN

The Court of Appeals

Sixth District

JAN-2 2 2013

Texarka.-ia, Texas

Debra Autrey, Clerk

t,^ /JL- .0* v<ZS- &F--> 0

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-1292-12

STEDMON DEWBERRY, Appellant

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

BOWIE COUNTY

Per curiaml Keasler and Hervey, JJ., dissent.

ORDER

The petition for discretionary review violates Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.5

because the petition exceeds 15 pages. See now Rule 9.4(i)(2)(D).

The petition is struck. See Rule ofAppellate Procedure 68.6.

The petitioner may redraw the petition. The redrawn petition and copies must be

filed in the Court ofCriminal Appeals within thirty days after the date ofthis order.

Filed: January 16, 2013

Do Not Publish
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. S. M. TRUITT.

(Filed 17 March, 1951.)

Appeal by State of North Carolina from *Hubbard, Special Judge,*7 September, 1953, Term, of Cubbitttck.

Criminal action wherein the defendant, after preliminary proceedings in accordance with applicable statutes, demurred to the bill of information charging in substance that he willfully violated the general gambling statutes of North Carolina by participating with others in betting on dog races under the pari-mutuel system of betting operated in connection therewith by the Oarolina-Yirginia Racing Association, Inc.

(Counsel representing Currituck County, and other counsel representing the Currituck County Racing Commission, were permitted to appear as *amici curiae*in the proceedings before Judge Hubbard and also by brief and oral argument in this Court.)

Before pleading, the defendant demurred to the bill of information for that “by reason of Oh. 541, Session Laws of 1949, the bill failed to charge the commission of any crime or misdemeanor.” Judge Hubbard sustained the demurrer, announcing at the time that he was “holding said Act of 1949 to be constitutional.” The State of North Carolina duly excepted to this ruling and appealed from the judgment predicated thereon as permitted by G.S. 15-179 (2).

*Attorney-General McMullan,- Assistant Attorney-General Moody, and Gerald F. White, Member of Staff, for the State.*

*. E. R. Woodard for defendant, appellee.*

*Lucas, Rand & Rose, John B. McMullan, Wilton F. Walicer, Jr., and John G. Dawson as amici curiae.*

Bobbitt, J.

Is Ch. 541, Session Laws of 1949, void as being in violation of limitations upon legislative power imposed by the Constitution of North Carolina? This is the question presented for decision. Upon the authority of the decision in *S. v. Felton, ante,*575, the defendant’s demurrer should have been overruled. Accordingly, the judgment of the lower court is

Reversed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 28, 2012 

h0321 

Order 

 

March 28, 2012 

143121-2 & (15) 

TIMOTHY CARLSON, RANDALL and 

LINDA KOLODZIEJSKI, WILLIAM 

and BEVERLY GLASSON, DAVID 

and KRISTIN ABRAHAM, DENNIS D. 

MARLOWE, DENNIS and TRACY 

HIGHT, TED DOBEK, CAROLYN 

KUPIEC, FREDERICK and MICHELLE 

CROSS, SANDRA POWERS, DANIEL G. 

OLIVARES, FRANCESCO and PAMELA 

SIMONE, GARY POTAPSHYN, GERALD 

KOWALSKI, and FRANK VITALE, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v SC: 143121-2 

 COA: 299577; 299587 

CITY OF WARREN, Macomb CC: 2000-01823-CZ 

Defendant-Appellant. 

____________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for miscellaneous relief is GRANTED. The 

application for leave to appeal the April 29, 2011 and May 2, 2011 orders of the Court of 

Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to 

appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration, as on leave 

granted, of the issue raised in Court of Appeals Docket No. 299577, whether any of the 

class members’ claims are barred by the three-year period of limitation set forth in MCL 

600.5805(10); and the issue raised in Court of Appeals Docket No. 299587, whether the 

defendant has a due process right to defend against the plaintiffs’ individual claims of 

causation and damages in this class action and/or whether there are due process 

implications to the process of statistical “extrapolation” to be drawn from the testimony 

of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, 

because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should now be 

reviewed by this Court. 

 CAVANAGH, J., not participating due to a familial relationship with counsel of 

record.
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-2018-0025-3106

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 60 (Wednesday, March 29, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 16138]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7689]

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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Central and Southern Holding Company; Acquisition of Company 
Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The organization listed in this notice has applied under Sec.  
225.23(a)(2) or (f) of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.23(a)(2) or 
(f)) for the Board's approval under section 4(c)(8) of the Bank Holding 
Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843(c)(8)) and Sec.  225.21(a) of Regulation Y 
(12 CFR 225.21(a)) to acquire or control voting securities or assets of 
a company engaged in a nonbanking activity that is listed in Sec.  
225.25 of Regulation Y as closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, such activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    The application is available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Once the application has been accepted 
for processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing on the question whether consummation of the proposal can 
``reasonably be expected to produce benefits to the public, such as 
greater convenience, increased competition, or gains in efficiency, 
that outweigh possible adverse effects, such as undue concentration of 
resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interests, or 
unsound banking practices.'' Any request for a hearing on this question 
must be accompanied by a statement of the reasons a written 
presentation would not suffice in lieu of a hearing, identifying 
specifically any questions of fact that are in dispute, summarizing the 
evidence that would be presented at a hearing, and indicating how the 
party commenting would be aggrieved by approval of the proposal.
    Comments regarding the application must be received at the Reserve 
Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than 
April 12, 1995.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Zane R. Kelley, Vice President) 
104 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303:
    1. Central and Southern Holding Company, Milledgeville, Georgia; to 
acquire 5.7 percent of Nova Financial Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia, 
and thereby engage in data processing activities, pursuant to Sec.  
225.25(b)(7) of the Board's Regulation Y. The proposed activity will be 
conducted throughout the state of Georgia.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 23, 
1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-7689 Filed 3-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
```
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 6962

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DANIEL THOMAS HERSL , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. ( 1:17

- cr - 00106

- CCB

- 3 ; 1:20

- cv - 03213

- CCB )

Submitted : December 16, 2021 Decided: December 20, 2021

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges , and KEENAN , Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Daniel Thomas Hersl , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Daniel Thoma s Hersl seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motions (1) to rescind an extension of time granted to the Government to file a response, (2) to compel the U.S. Attorney to sign the Government’s opposition, (3) to disqualify the
Government’s counsel, and (4) to appoint counsel . This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541,
545

- 46 (1949). The order Hersl seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con tentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Regards, 

//-2 ‘--

Michael Kersey, President 

American 

Lawn Mower Co 

— Established 1895 — 

American Lawn Mower Company I The Great States Corporation 

7444 Shadeland Station Way, Indianapolis, IN 46256 USA 

Ph 317-392-3615 Toll Free 800-633-1501 

September 21, 2018 

To the office of the United States Trade Representative 

Re: Submission of request for exclusion of 0S70015 garden shredder 

This is to certify that the value and quantity of GS70015 garden shredders purchased by 

The Great States Corporation is confidential. Disclosure of this information would endanger 

the company's profitability. This information is not customarily released to the public.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3948

Academy, Ltd:

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