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 13, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4224

Cummins Inc:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20. 

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

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

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
#### FEDERAL FINANCE AND CREDIT COMPANY v. MARSHALL TEETER.

(Filed 24 October, 1928.)

1. Replevin — Parties—Surety—Claim and Delivery.

Tbe liability of the surety on a replevy bond in claim and delivery is not required to be determined in a separate action.

2. Trial — Instructions—Harmless Error.

Where but one inference of fact can be drawn from all the evidence in the case, and the jury has accordingly so answered the issue, an erroneous instruction thereon is not reversible error.

Appeal by defendant from *Bond, J.,*and a jury, at March Term, 1928, of Durham.

No error.

The issue submitted to the jury and the answer thereto were as follows : “What, damage, if any, has the plaintiff sustained on account of the wrongful detention of said automobile by the defendant since the issuance of claim and delivery herein? Answer: $574, with interest.”

*B. H. Sykes and B. P. Beade for ‘plaintiff.*

*Hartsell & Hartsell for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

This was a civil action brought by plaintiff to recover balance due on an automobile with the ancillary remedy of claim and delivery for said automobile, the same being replevied by the defendant upon the giving of a bond in the sum of twelve hundred dollars ($1,200).

*233Tbe *first*question: “Can all tbe questions involved in an action, including tbe liability of tbe surety on replevin bond, be settled in one suit ratber tban bringing separate and independent actions?”

We tbink so, under our liberal practice. Tbe defendant gave an undertaking “with damages for tbe deterioration and detention.”

In *Moore v. Edwards,*192 N. C., at p. 448, it was said: “We can find no statutory provision prohibiting separate actions in a ease of tbis kind. *It is no doubt better 'practice to.try out the entire controversy in one*actionSee *Polson v. Strickland,*193 N. C., 299; *Crump v. Love,*193 N. C., 464.

*Second.*“Where, from all'tbe evidence before tbe court tbe jury can draw but one inference, will a new trial be granted on account of .error in tbe charge of tbe trial judge ?”

When tbe replevy bond was given by defendant, it was for $1,200 (C. S., 836), “to the effect that they are bound in double tbe value of tbe property.” So, when tbe property was replevied and taken by defendant, it was valued at $600. Defendant kept tbe car for some eighteen months and it was returned to plaintiff. All of tbe evidence was to tbe effect that it was in bad condition, and when sold at public auction, after notice, a large crowd being present, it only brought $26.

One of tbe witnesses testified: “It brought as much or more tban it was worth.” Another testified: “I have bad experience in selling secondhand automobiles as an auctioneer. I tbink the car brought all it was worth at that time.”

It will be noted that tbe jury deducted tbe $26, tbe amount tbe automobile sold for, from tbe $600, and their verdict was for $574. Tbe jury were warranted on all tbe evidence to return tbe verdict they did. Tbe charge on tbe measure of damage, although erroneous, was harmless.

No error.
EXHIBIT 32

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report of Eastern American Natural Gas Trust (the "Trust") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the successor trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:

(1)   The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)   The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust at the dates and for
the periods presented.

The
above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a
separate disclosure document.

| |  | The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A.,
Trustee for Eastern American Natural Gas Trust
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | By:                                                                                     

Date:
March 14, 2008

---



QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7223

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BROOKS JAMES TERRELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (7:99-cr-00610-HMH)

Submitted: December 12, 2007 Decided: January 4, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brooks James Terrell, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun Stephens,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Brooks James Terrell seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion for modification of sentence under 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). In criminal cases, the defendant must

file the notice of appeal within ten days of the entry of judgment.

Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). With or without a motion, upon a

showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may

grant an extension of up to thirty days to file a notice of appeal.

Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353

(4th Cir. 1985).

The district court entered judgment on June 19, 2007; the

ten-day appeal period expired on July 3, 2007. Terrell filed a

notice of appeal on August 2, 2007--after the ten-day period

expired but within the thirty-day excusable neglect period.

Because the notice of appeal was filed within the excusable neglect

period, we remand the case to the district court for the court to

determine whether Terrell has shown excusable neglect or good cause

warranting an extension of the ten-day appeal period. The record,

as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further

consideration.

REMANDED
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 4.6
 
                     AMENDMENT TO STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT
                     -------------------------------------

          In accordance with Section 7.3 (relating to certain permitted
amendments) of that certain Stock Purchase Agreement dated as of March 31, 1999
by and between the undersigned (the "Agreement"), Article 5 of such Agreement is
hereby amended, without further action of the parties, to clarify that all of
the management rights conferred upon the "Purchasers" in that Article shall be
understood to have been conferred, ab initio, solely on Oak Hill Capital
Partners, L.P. (which is one of the "Purchasers" under that Agreement);
provided, that the determination of the "Consultation Period" pursuant to the
first sentence of Section 5.1 of the Agreement shall continue to be made with
reference to the "Shares" collectively owned by all of the "Purchasers."

          Oak Hill Capital Partners, L.P. hereby ratifies, confirms and approves
Daniel L. Doctoroff as its representative for purposes of Section 5.6 of the
Agreement, as provided in the last sentence of Section 5.6, and the Company
hereby accepts such designation.

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed and delivered this
Agreement on the 15th day of April, 1999, effective as of the 31st day of March,
1999.

                        MERISTAR HOTELS & RESORTS, INC.



                        By:_________________________________
                           Name:
                           Title:


                        OAK HILL CAPITAL PARTNERS, L.P.
                        By:  OHCP GenPar, L.P., its general partner
                        By:  OHCP MGP, LLC, its general partner

                        By:_________________________________
                           Name:  Daniel L. Doctoroff
                           Title:  Vice President


                        OAK HILL CAPITAL MANAGEMENT PARTNERS, L.P.
                        By:  OHCP GenPar, L.P., its general partner
                        By:  OHCP MGP, LLC, its general partner
<PAGE>
 
                        By:_________________________________
                           Name:  Daniel L. Doctoroff
                           Title:  Vice President
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3912

Cummins Allison Corp:

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
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7318** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. KENNETH LAMONT CHAPLIN , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. J. Frederick Motz , Senior District Judge. ( 1:05

- cr - 00186

- JFM

- 1; 1:12

- cv - 00794

- JFM )

Submitted : January 10, 2013 Decided: January 18, 2013

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Kenneth Lamont Chaplin, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Clayton Hanlon, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circu it.2 PER CURIAM: Kenneth Lamont Chaplin seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfie s this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003 ). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Chaplin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 co ntentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1



                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with Amendment Number 1 to the Annual Report on Form
10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2002, of Synagro Technologies, Inc.
(the "Company"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ross M. Patten, certify that, to the best of my
knowledge, the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company and that the Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

                                               /s/ Ross M. Patten
                                               ------------------------------
                                               Ross M. Patten,
                                               Chief Executive Officer
                                               April 14, 2003
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-2511

HP 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 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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 56 (Thursday, March 23, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 15255]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7124]



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


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 90-44; RM-7123 and RM-7367]


Radio Broadcasting Services; East Los Angeles, Long Beach, and 
Frazier Park, California

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission grants the rule making petition (RM-7123) of 
Spanish Broadcasting System of Florida, Inc., licensee of Station KLAX-
FM, Channel 250B, Long Beach, California, requesting a reallotment of 
its Class B channel in Long Beach to the community of East Los Angeles, 
California. See Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 55 FR 6808, published 
February 27, 1990. The Commission dismisses the counterproposal (RM-
7367) of Richard A. Cramer, to allot Channel 251A to Frazier Park, 
California as its first local service.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 1, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J. Bertron Withers, Jr., Mass Media 
Bureau, (202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission ordered modification of the 
license of Station KLAX-FM, Long Beach, to specify East Los Angeles as 
the new community of license. Channel 250B can be allotted to East Los 
Angeles in compliance with the Commission's requirements for minimum 
interstation distance separations with a site restricted to 18.9 
kilometers (11.7 miles) east of East Los Angeles, located at 
coordinates North Latitude 34-02-45 and West Longitude 118-21-20. 
Because East Los Angeles is within 320 kilometers (199 miles) of the 
Mexican border, concurrence of the Mexican government in this proposal 
was obtained. With this action, the proceeding is terminated.
    This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket 
No. 90-44, adopted March 7, 1995 and released March 17, 1995. The full 
text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and 
copying during normal business hours in the FCC Dockets Branch (Room 
239), 1919 M Street, NW, Washington, D.C. The complete text of this 
decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 
International Transcription Services, (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, 
NW, Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

PART 73--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 73 reads as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 303, 48 Stat., as amended, 1082; 47 U.S.C. 154, 
as amended.

Sec. 73.202  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under California, 
is amended by removing Channel 250B at Long Beach and adding Channel 
250B at East Los Angeles.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.

[FR Doc. 95-7124 Filed 3-22-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 52 (Friday, March 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 14430]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6558]



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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Science Board Task Force on C-17 Review, Phase II

ACTION: Notice of advisory committee meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on C-17 Review, Phase II 
will meet in closed session on March 27, 1995 at Wright-Patterson Air 
Force Base, Ohio.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense through the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and 
Technology) on research, scientific, technical, and manufacturing 
matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of 
Defense. At this meeting the Task Force will access the current status 
of the C-17 program.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II, (1988)), it has 
been determined that this DSB Task Force meeting, concerns matters 
listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) (1988), and that accordingly this meeting 
will be closed to the public.

    Dated: March 13, 1995.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 95-6558 Filed 3-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3857 

To terminate certain waivers of sanctions with respect to Iran issued in 

connection with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 16, 2022 

Mr. CRUZ (for himself, Mr. COTTON, Mr. CASSIDY, Mr. CRAMER, Ms. ERNST, 

Mr. BRAUN, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. SCOTT of Florida, Mr. HOEVEN, Mr. 

TILLIS, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. HAGERTY, and Mr. INHOFE) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To terminate certain waivers of sanctions with respect to 

Iran issued in connection with the Joint Comprehensive 

Plan of Action, 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. TERMINATION OF CERTAIN WAIVERS OF SANC4 TIONS WITH RESPECT TO NUCLEAR ACTIVI5 TIES IN OR WITH IRAN. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Effective on the date of the enact7 ment of this Act, any waiver of the application of sanctions 

8 provided for under sections 1244, 1245, 1246, and 1247 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3857 IS

1 of the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 

2 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8803, 8804, 8805, and 8806) for or to 

3 enable an activity described in subsection (b) is termi4 nated, and the President may not issue a new such waiver 

5 for such an activity on or after such date of enactment. 

6 (b) ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED.—An activity described 

7 in this subsection is an activity in or with Iran with re8 spect to which a waiver described in subsection (a) was 

9 issued in connection with the Joint Comprehensive Plan 

10 of Action, including the following: 

11 (1) Modernization or redesign of the Arak reac12 tor. 

13 (2) Preparation or modification of centrifuge 

14 cascades at the Fordow facility for stable isotope 

15 production. 

16 (3) Operations, training, or services related to 

17 the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, including fuel de18 livery and take-back. 

19 (4) Transfer of uranium into or outside Iran, 

20 including natural uranium, enriched uranium, or nu21 clear fuel scrap. 

22 (5) Transfer or storage of Iranian heavy water, 

23 inside or outside of Iran. 

24 (c) JOINT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF ACTION DE25 FINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘Joint Comprehensive 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3857 IS

1 Plan of Action’’ means the Joint Comprehensive Plan of 

2 Action signed at Vienna on July 14, 2015, by Iran and 

3 by France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the People’s 

4 Republic of China, the United Kingdom, and the United 

5 States, and all implementing materials and agreements re6 lated to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS