alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PUBLIC VERSION
$[*********] [******]

$[*********]

INPUT

20.0

$[*********]

[******]

[******]

0.05

PUBLIC VERSION
Consistent with USTR's Section 301 notice, OMRON Management Center of America, Inc. requests

confidential treatment for the information designated as business confidential in this submission. Such

information consists of information that would not customarily be released to the public, including

business or trade secrets regarding production costs and processes, data on sales, product characteristics

customers, destinations, and other product, sales, and cost-related business secrets. Business confidential

information has been indicated herein by enclosing it in single brackets (“[ ]”). A public version of these

comments is also being filed with all confidential information removed.

OMRON in the US is the only designer of this product and only supplier of this component.

CASE,UPPER BTN is a molded plastic switch case, and is used only for automotive purposes to

house switches in a key fob, of which is an OEM-specified dimension. It is only used for further

assembly of components which go into domestic automobile production, which is specified by auto

manufacturer.

This product is not a target of the US Administration's 301 investigation regarding Intellectual Property

concerns. This is not a concern to IP transfer and impressment. This product contains no IP of interest

related to autonomous vehicle production.

The tariff action ultimately poses a risk of significant damage to OMRON, the domestic automobile

industry, and ultimately the US consumer as a increase in price. Like in the case of similar approvals for

vehicle components at the HTS level, OMRON views this product in the same manner. Immediate

movement of production to a US manufacturer or another country would pose significant re-tooling

costs, significant amounts of time, and approvals pertaining to consumer automobile safety standards are

costly and would take a significant amount of time to obtain.

OMRON Management Center of America, Inc. believes that CBP can easily exclude the CASE,UPPER

BTN in question based solely on the product description. The following are draft CBP exclusion

instructions:

"CASE,UPPER BTN c "pear-shaped" raised edge flat molding with four button

holes hollowed out; two arranged next two each other at the top and two arranged on top of each other

below, and a fifth hollow hole at the bottom "Plastic case for REMOTE FUNCTION ACTUATOR -

made of resin - ABS+PC" Dimensions 42m x57.23mm x8.12mm."

This information will be contained on the invoice from the supplier.

PUBLIC VERSION
#### Jesus LOPEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 42803.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 26, 1990.

Motion for Rehearing and /or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 31, 1990.

Application to Transfer Denied Sept. 11, 1990.

David S. Durbin, Appellate Defender, Anthony C. Cardarella, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., M. Melissa Manda, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before NUGENT, C.J., and FENNER and ULRICH, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from denial of Rule 27.26 motion for post-conviction relief without an eviden-tiary hearing.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
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
================================================================================

Exhibit 32.1


                            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 the Quarterly Report  of Scala Minerals, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for  the   period   ended  December 31, 2006 as  filed  with  the
Securities and Exchange Commission   on   the   date hereof (the "Report"),  the
undersigned,  in the capacities and   on   the   dates   indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as   adopted  pursuant to Section
906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to her knowledge:

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

2.   The  information  contained  in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date:  February 14, 2007


/s/ Elena Krioukova
-------------------------------------------
Elena Krioukova, President and C.E.O.
(Principal Executive Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 60 (Wednesday, March 29, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 16148]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7632]



[[Page 16148]]

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Dkt. 9266]


Red Apple Companies, Inc., et al.; Prohibited Trade Practices, 
and Affirmative Corrective Actions

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Consent order.

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

SUMMARY: In settlement of alleged violations of federal law prohibiting 
unfair acts and practices and unfair methods of competition, this 
consent order requires, among other things, three New York-based 
companies and their officer to divest six supermarkets, within 12 
months, to a Commission-approved acquirer or acquirers. If the 
respondents fail to satisfy the divestiture requirements, the consent 
order permits the Commission to appoint a trustee to divest 
supermarkets to satisfy the terms of the order. The consent order also 
prohibits the respondents, for ten years, from acquiring, without prior 
Commission approval, any supermarket or any interest in an entity that 
owns or operates a supermarket in New York County south of 116th 
Street. In addition, the respondents, for ten years, are prohibited 
from entering into or enforcing any restrictions that would prevent any 
person acquiring any supermarket owned or operated by any respondent in 
New York County south of 116th Street from operating the stores as 
supermarkets.

DATES: Compaint issued May 27, 1994. Order issued February 28, 1995.\1\

    \1\Copies of the Complaint and the Decision and Order are 
available from the Commission's Public Reference Branch, H-130, 6th 
Street & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ronald Rowe, FTC/S-2105, Washington, DC 20580. (202) 326-2610.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On Monday, December 19, 1994, there was 
published in the Federal Register, 59 FR 65364, a proposed consent 
agreement with analysis In the Matter of Red Apple Companies, Inc., et 
al., for the purpose of soliciting public comment. Interested parties 
were given sixty (60) days in which to submit comments, suggestions or 
objections regarding the proposed from of the order.
    No comments having been received, the Commission has ordered the 
issuance of the complaint in the form contemplated by the agreement, 
made its jurisdictional findings and entered an order to divest, as set 
forth in the proposed consent agreement, in disposition of this 
proceeding.

(Sec. 6, 38 Stat. 721; 15 U.S.C. 46. Interpret or apply sec. 5, 38 
Stat. 719, as amended; sec. 7, 38 Stat. 731, as amended; 15 U.S.C. 
45, 18).
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-7632 Filed 3-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
#### STATE v. WILL JOHNSON.

(Filed 16 April, 1947.)

Appeal by defendant from *Stevens, J.,*at October Term, 1946, of Edgecombe.

This action was tried upon appeal to tbe *Superior Qourt*and defendant was found guilty, and from judgment pronounced upon such verdict the defendant appealed, assigning error.

*Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney s-General Bruton, Rhodes, and Moody for the State.*

*Cameron S. Weeks and Cooley & May for defendant, appellant.*

Per Curiam.

There appears in the record the following: “In a charge that was free from error, the Court instructed the jury that they could convict the defendant only of an unlawful sale of liquor or find the defendant not guilty,” and “To the foregoing statement the Solicitor and Counsel for the defendant agree, and that it shall be a part of this case on appeal.”

At the close of all the evidence the defendant renewed a motion he had theretofore made when the State had rested its case for a dismissal and for a judgment as of nonsuit which was denied, and exception taken. There was a verdict of guilty, whereupon the defendant moved that said verdict be sot aside, which was denied. The defendant then moved to set aside the judgment signed, which was overruled, and exception noted.

This case presents but one assignment of error for the consideration of this Court upon appeal, namely, was the evidence introduced sufficient to carry to the jury the issue as to a sale of liquor by the appellant, Will Johnson? The court below held that there was such evidence and submitted such issue to the jury. In this holding we think there was no error.

We have read carefully the record of the evidence and we are constrained to hold that there was sufficient evidence, and since the Solicitor and counsel for the defendant agreed in the outset that the only verdicts that could be rendered in this case were those of guilty of the defendant in making sale of liquor or not guilty, we hold that there was no error in submitting the issue.

In the judgment below we find

No error.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 6, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00157

- CV

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO

, Appellant

v.

100 CENTURY OAKS, LTD

.,

Appellee

From the 225th J udicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CI17872 Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal from the trial court ’s order denying appellant’s plea to the jurisdiction. A ppellant timely filed i t s notice of appeal on March 14, 2018. Accordingly, the

reporter ’ s record was due ten days later on March 26, 2018

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.1(b), 35.1(b).

The record has not been filed. On March 28, 2018, the court reporter filed a notification of late

record stating the record was not filed because appellant has not p aid or made arrangements to pay the reporter ’ s fee to prepare the record and that appellant is not entitled to the record without paying the fee. See id. R. 34.6(b), 35.3(b).

We therefore ordered appellant to provide written proof to this court on or be fore April 9,

2018 that either : (1) the reporter ’ s fee has been paid or arrangements satisfactory to the reporter have been made to pay the reporter ’ s fee ; or (2) appellant is entitled to the record without prepayment of the reporter ’ s fee. See id. R. 35. 3(b). On April 2, 2018, appellant filed a response to our order. In its response, appellant provided proof of payment to court reporter Maria E. “Mary Helen” Vargas. Accordingly, we ORDER court reporter Maria E. “Mary Helen” Vargas to file the reporter’s record in this court on or before April 16, 2018

.

We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on all counsel and the court

reporter.

___________________ ______________ Marialyn Barnard, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 6th day of April, 2018

.

__________________ _________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION**


**PURSUANT
      TO SECITON 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(SUBSECTIONS
      (A0 AND (B) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF**


**TITLE
      18, UNITED STATES CODE)**





Pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
      undersigned officers of U.S. Wireless Data, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
      “Company”), does herby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





The
      Form
      10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2006 (the “Form 10-KSB”) of the Company fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.




Date:
              October 13, 2006
            
            /s/ Robert
              EllinRobert
              Ellin, Chief Executive
              Officer




Date:
              October 13, 2006
            
            /s/ Jay
              WolfJay Wolf, Chief Operating Officer and Chief
              Financial Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Robert A. Harris, Respondent, v New York University, Appellant.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (David Edwards, Jr., J.), entered on June 2, 1989, which, *inter alia,*denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time barred, unanimously reversed, on the law, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed, without costs.

*217In 1972, plaintiff-respondent Robert Allen Harris earned a Master’s degree in business administration from the defendant university under the name of Robert Allen Heimowitz. In September 1973, plaintiff legally changed his surname to Harris, and according to the complaint, so advised the Registrar’s office of the university’s business school on numerous occasions. Between 1973 and 1976, plaintiff allegedly contacted the Registrar’s office on numerous occasions to make certain that his name change was properly reflected, and he received repeated assurances. Nonetheless, according to the complaint, the university informed a placement service retained by plaintiff in 1984 that it had no record of plaintiff receiving a degree. The complaint further alleges that defendant failed to confirm plaintiff’s receipt of a degree to prospective employers, damaging his reputation in the business community.

The motion court denied both the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s affirmative defense that the action is barred by applicable Statutes of Limitations. In its memorandum decision, the court stated that the two causes stated in the complaint would be time barred, but held that a triable issue was presented on whether defendant is equitably estopped from asserting the Statute of Limitations as a defense.

While we agree with the motion court’s analysis of the underlying theories of the causes of action and the applicable Statutes of Limitations, we cannot agree that plaintiff has come forward with sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of equitable estoppel. *(See, Griesemer v Bourst,*141 AD2d 919.) Plaintiff has come forward with no evidence that the offer by the placement office of further placement assistance or the other statements allegedly made by unnamed agents of the university were either fraudulent or an inducement for him to refrain from filing a timely action. *(See, Simcuski v Saeli,*44 NY2d 442.) While the record allegations, if true, indicate troubling administrative lapses on the part of the placement office, they do not present the elements of an equitable estoppel. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Milonas and Rubin, JJ.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

April 12, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4544

ECM Industries 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 

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

_04.15.19.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,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

TERRENCE GERRARD FORD, Appellant, No. 69603 VS. JAMES COX, 

# FILED Respondent. 

### JUL 1 2 2016 TRACIE K. LINDEMAN CLERK OF UPREME COURT BY 5 ' DEPUTY CLERK 

### ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL Cause appearing, appellant's motion for a voluntary dismissal of this appeal is granted. This appeal is dismissed. NRAP 42(b).

It is so ORDERED. 

# / _Littaits t Hardesty Saitta Pickering cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge Terrence Gerrard Ford Attorney General/Carson City Carson City District Attorney Carson City Clerk

(0) 1947A 

### IL- 2/728
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-64999) of Synagro Technologies, Inc. of our
report dated March 29, 2004 (except for the audit of the consolidated financial
statements at December 31, 2001 and for the year then ended and the matters
discussed in Note 2, as to which the date is October 4, 2004), relating to the
consolidated financial statements, which appears in this Form 10-K/A.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Houston, Texas
October 20, 2004
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 17, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-3313

BAE Systems Controls 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/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September.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
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-15-0000534 16-DEC-2016 08:15 AM
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

October 26, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2226

Staples Contract and Commercial LLC:

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