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

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3614

JLG Industries, Inc:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20. 

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

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

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
II 

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. 

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 ‘‘Freedom to Import 

5 Infant Formula Act of 2022’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF DUTIES AND OTHER RESTRIC7 TIONS ON IMPORTATION OF INFANT FOR8 MULA. 

9 (a) DUTY-FREE TREATMENT OF INFANT FOR10 MULA.—On and after the date of the enactment of this 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4252 IS

1 Act, infant formula classified under heading 1901.10 of 

2 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States shall 

3 enter the United States free of duty and free of quan4 titative limitation. 

5 (b) IMPORTATION OF INFANT FORMULA LEGAL FOR

6 SALE IN CERTAIN COUNTRIES.— 

7 (1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other 

8 provision of law, with respect to infant formula from 

9 a country described in paragraph (2)— 

10 (A) U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

11 may not seize or otherwise enforce restrictions 

12 on the importation of such formula if such for13 mula would meet the legal requirements for sale 

14 in that country; and 

15 (B) such formula is deemed to be in com16 pliance with the requirements under section 412 

17 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

18 (21 U.S.C. 350a). 

19 (2) COUNTRY DESCRIBED.—A country de20 scribed in this paragraph is any of the following: 

21 (A) Australia. 

22 (B) Canada. 

23 (C) Israel. 

24 (D) Japan. 

25 (E) New Zealand. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4252 IS

1 (F) The United Kingdom. 

2 (G) A member country of the European 

3 Union. 

4 (H) A member country of the European 

5 Economic Area. 

6 (c) INFANT FORMULA DEFINED.—In this section, the 

7 term ‘‘infant formula’’ has the meaning given that term 

8 in section 201(z) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

9 Act (21 U.S.C. 321(z)). 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### J. W. PASCHAL, Administrator, v. JOHN B. PASCHAL.

(Filed 10 April, 1929.)

1. Executors and Administrators C c — Administrator may not recover from deceased’s son money expended in joint enterprise.

Where a son insures his life for the benefit of Ms mother in case she survives him, and otherwise to his estate, and some of the premiums on the policy are paid by the insured and some by the mother, upon the prior death of the mother her administrator may not recover from the son the premiums paid by the mother on the theory that they were advancements to him to be accounted for, the arrangement appearing to be their joint enterprise.

2. Wills E c — Definition of Advancement.

An advancement is a gift *in prcesenti*by a parent to a child for the purpose of advancing the latter in life, and thus for the child to anticipate the inheritance to the extent of the advancement.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Clement, J.,*at December Term, 1928, of Caswell.

Proceedings to require John B. Paschal to account to the estate of Martha F. Paschal, deceased, for certain insurance premiums paid by the deceased on an insurance policy carried on the life of John B. Paschal and made payable to Martha F. Paschal, mother of the insured, in case she survived him, otherwise to the estate of the insured. It is alleged by the administrator that the insurance premiums paid by the deceased were advancements to John B. Paschal and as such should be accounted for by him.

From a judgment of nonsuit entered at the close of the evidence, the administrator appeals, assigning error.

*Luther M. Carlton and Robert T. Wilson for plaintiff.*

*E. F. Upchurch and Glide-well, Dunn & G-wyn for defendant.*

Stacy, C. J.

The transaction between the deceased and her son, relative to the insurance policy in question, seems to have been a joint enterprise. Some of the premiums were paid by the parent, some by the child. Both benefited thereby. We think the trial court correctly held that such payments on the part of the mother, under the fact situation disclosed by the record, could not be regarded as gifts or advancements to the son.

An advancement may be defined as a gift *in prcesenti*or provision made by a parent on behalf of a child for the purpose of advancing said *41child in life, and thus to enable him to anticipate his inheritance to the extent of such advancement. C. S., 1654, rule 2; *Lunsford v. Yarbrough,*189 N. C., 476, 127 S. E., 426; *Nobles v. Davenport, 183*N. C., 207, 111 S. E., 180; *Thompson v. Smith,*160 N. C., 256, 75 S. E., 1010; *Kyle v. Conrad,*25 W. Va., p. 774.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
         THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
         TECHNISOURCE, INC.'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED
         IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          11,899,634
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,516,818
<ALLOWANCES>                                       825,283
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                39,276,596
<PP&E>                                           5,137,768
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,720,637
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  47,331,360
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,433,614
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           103,850
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,793,896
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    47,331,360
<SALES>                                         31,085,812
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,085,812
<CGS>                                           22,970,418
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,970,418
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,789,774
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  49,177
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    500,578
<INCOME-TAX>                                       210,468
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                290,110
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       290,110
<EPS-BASIC>                                           0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.03



</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                  Exhibit 23


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration
Statements No. 333-08965, No. 333-08957, No. 333-08947, No. 33-
46065, No. 33-46067, No. 33-80282 and No. 33-62480 on Forms S-8
and No. 33-78018 on Form S-3 of Viewlogic Systems, Inc. of our
reports dated January 29, 1997 (February 19, 1997 as to the
second paragraph of Note 3), appearing in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Viewlogic Systems, Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 1996.


/s/  Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 28, 1997

                                 60
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-2018-0025-2972

Price Pump Company:

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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 48 (Monday, March 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 13491]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6116]



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


OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

Federal Employees Health Benefits Program; Invitation for 
Applications and Benefits Change Proposals

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice of the acceptance of applications from new comprehensive 
medical plans (HMO's) for participation in the Federal Employees Health 
Benefits (FEHB) Program, and benefits change proposals from plans 
currently participating in the FEHB Program, for contract year 1996.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Office of Personnel Management 
(OPM) will consider new applications from HMO's for the FEHB Program 
contract year beginning January 1, 1996. OPM will also consider 
benefits change proposals from plans currently in the FEHB Program.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 890.203 of title 5, Code of Federal 
Regulations, authorizes OPM to invite applications from HMO's to 
participate in the FEHB Program, and to consider changes in rates and 
benefits for health benefits plans currently participating in the 
Program, when it determines that it is in the best interests of 
enrollees and the Program to do so. By this notice, OPM is officially 
announcing its decision to consider applications from new HMO's, and 
benefits change proposals from participating plans, for contract year 
1996.
    OPM is extending the deadline for the submission of the completed 
application from January 31 to March 31, 1995. Plans must submit 
evidence demonstrating they meet all requirements for approval by March 
31, 1995. However, that date would be extended, if OPM requests 
additional information, to 30 days from the date of OPM's request. All 
rate and benefits submissions are due by May 31, 1995.

Office of Personnel Management.
James B. King,
Director.
[FR Doc. 95-6116 Filed 3-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-M
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, 2004
   Basic EPS
      Net income and income available to common stockholders                $1,072         1,424         $.75
      Effect of dilutive securities, options                                                   0
                                                                            ------         -----
   Diluted EPS
      Income available to common stockholders and assumed
         conversions                                                        $1,072         1,424         $.75
                                                                            ======         =====

Three months ended March 31, 2003
   Basic EPS
      Net income and income available to common stockholders                $1,029         1,423         $.72
      Effect of dilutive securities, options                                                   0
                                                                            ------         -----
   Diluted EPS
      Income available to common stockholders and assumed
         conversions                                                        $1,029         1,423         $.72
                                                                            ======         =====
</TABLE>


                                       19
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40103 Conference Calendar

JIHAAD A.M.E. SAAHIR, f/k/a Jehad Abdullah Shabazz, a/k/a James Loggins, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus W.J. ESTELLE, JR., ET AL, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:83-CV-225

- - - - - - - - - - December 10, 1998 Before DAVIS, DeMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jihaad A.M.E. Saahir, formerly known as Jehad Abdullah Shabazz, a/k/a James Loggins, Texas prisoner # 291515, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for contempt to enforce the settlement agreement in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Saahir argues that the district court erred in dismissing his motion for civil contempt and damages because the settlement agreement specifically states that the defendants would recognize him byNo. 98-40103 -2- his legal name ONLY and because Felix v. Rolan , 833 F.2d 517 (5th

Cir. 1987) was not decided at the time the settlement was agreed upon and so is not controlling in this case. He argues that his claims are related to the settlement agreement because he lost his property and was denied indigent supplies because he used his religious name in compliance with the agreement, and the defendants refused to recognize his legally religious name only , contrary to the agreement. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Saahir’s motion for contempt. Siglar v. Hightower , 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). Further, we hold that Saahir’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We cautioned Saahir in his last appeal from the denial of a contempt motion in this case that any additional frivolous appeals would invite the imposition of sanctions. See Saahir v. Estelle , No. 95-40633 (5th Cir. Dec. 19, 1995). Accordingly, Saahir is BARRED from filing any pro se , in forma pauperis , civil appeal in this court without the prior written approval of an active judge of this court. Further he is BARRED from filing any
pro se , in forma pauperis , initial civil pleading in any court which is subject to this court's jurisdiction, without the advance written permission of a judge of the forum court. The clerk of this court and the clerks of all federal district courtsNo. 98-40103 -3- subject to the jurisdiction of this court are directed to return to Saahir, unfiled, any attempted submission inconsistent with this bar.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED.
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-2018-0025-3240

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
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                       Consent of Independent Accountants



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
United Retail Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the "Company") on Forms S-8 (File
No. 33-48500, No. 33-48501 and No. 33-67288) of our report dated February 14,
1997, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of the Company as
of February 1, 1997 and February 3, 1996 and for each of the three fiscal years
ended February 1, 1997, which report is incorporated by reference in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K.



                                                        COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.



New York, New York
April 18, 1997
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

March 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129837 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. Plaintiff-Appellee, Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices v SC: 129837 

 COA: 262165 

Genesee CC: 98-003756-FC 

GERMAIN SKINNER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 21, 2005 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s0320 

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. 

March 27, 2006 

Clerk