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

October 18, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2278

TP-Link Research America Corporation:

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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3588

Stanley Electric Co, 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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 56 (Thursday, March 23, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15304]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7167]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Geological Survey


Earth Observing System (EOS) Land Processes Distributed Active 
Archive Center (DAAC) Science Advisory Panel

AGENCY: U.S. Geological Survey, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Public law 92-463, the Land Processes DAAC Science 
Advisory Panel will meet at the U.S. Geological Survey Earth Resources 
Observation Systems (EROS) Data Center near Sioux Falls, South Dakota. 
The Panel, comprised of scientists from academic and government 
institutions, will provide Land Processes DAAC management with advice 
and consultation on a broad range of scientific and technical topics 
relevant to the development and operation of DAAC systems and 
capabilities.
    Topics to be reviewed and discussed by the Panel include status of 
1995 Land Processes DAAC development activities; a preliminary list of 
1996 activities; DAAC user services status; EOS Core System (ECS) 
development status; various Land Processes DAAC-related ECS topics; and 
others.

DATES: April 11-13, 1995, commencing at 8:30 a.m. on April 11 and 
adjourning by 3:30 p.m. on April 13.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Bryan Bailey, Land Processes DAAC 
Project Scientist, U.S. Geological Survey, EROS Data Center, Sioux 
Falls, South Dakota 57198 at (605) 594-6001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Meetings of the Land Processes DAAC Science 
Advisory Panel are open to the public.

    Dated: March 14, 1995.
Gordon P. Eaton,
Director, U.S. Geological Survey.
[FR Doc. 95-7167 Filed 3-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-31-M
#### KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. Thomas William GOODMAN, Jr., Respondent.

No. 91-SC-031-KB.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

May 9, 1991.

ORDER OF PUBLIC REPRIMAND

Upon motion of the Kentucky Bar Association pursuant to SCR 3.435, an Order was entered by this Court on February 14, 1991, for respondent to inform the Court and show cause on or before March 27, 1991, why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed. The response which was filed neither raised a lack of jurisdiction or fraud in the Order of the state disciplinary proceedings nor that the misconduct established warranted substantially different discipline in this state.

It is hereby ordered that respondent, Thomas William Goodman, Jr., be, and he hereby is, issued a public reprimand for misconduct and being the identical discipline imposed upon the respondent by Ordered entered December 4, 1990, by the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board.

ENTERED: May 9, 1991.

/s/ Robert F. Stephens Chief Justice
# ORMNAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Nv
- 03610

IN THE MATTER OF THE AUTHORIZATION OF A RETIRED JUDGE TO PERFORM A MARRIAGE CEREMONY ORDER 

# FILE AUG 2 4 2020

The Honorable Mike Salvagni, Retired District Judge, having retired under the judges' retirement system as provided by law and having requested authorization to perform a marriage ceremony, IT IS ORDERED that the Honorable Mike Salvagni is hereby called to duty as a district judge to perform a marriage ceremony uniting Thomas William Hamilton and Misti Lorena Andersen on September 18,2020,in Gallatin County,Montana. This Order is entered by the Chief Justice pursuant to Article VII of the Constitution ofthe State of Montana and statutes enacted in conformity therewith and in implementation thereof. The Clerk ofCourt is directed to mail a copy ofthis Order to the Honorable Mike Salvagni. DATED this 1

-s-k day ofAugust,2020.

# „ e
ChiefJustice 08/24/2020

Case Number: PR 06-0356
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3965 

To provide that broker-dealers who provide research services to an investment 

manager and receive payments from certain accounts is not an investment adviser, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 30, 2022 

Mr. MORAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide that broker-dealers who provide research services 

to an investment manager and receive payments from 

certain accounts is not an investment adviser, 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 ‘‘Increasing Access to 

5 Adviser Information Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF INVESTMENT ADVISER. 

7 Section 202(a)(11) of the Investment Advisers Act of 

8 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b–2(a)(11)) is amended by striking 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3965 IS

1 ‘‘or (H)’’ and inserting ‘‘(H) any broker or dealer who 

2 provides research services to an investment manager and 

3 accepts payment for those services from the investment 

4 manager’s own money, from a research payment account 

5 funded with money from a client of the investment man6 ager, or a combination thereof, provided that the payment 

7 method of the investment manager is subject to, either di8 rectly or by contractual obligation, the Directive 2014/65/ 

9 EU of the European Parliament, the Council of 15 May 

10 2014 on markets in financial instruments and amending 

11 Directive 2002/92/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU, as im12 plemented by the European Union member states, or any 

13 other law from any foreign jurisdiction that is substan14 tially similar to that directive and the implementing rules 

15 and regulations of that directive; or (I)’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
##### 



Exhibit 3.2




---



##### 



Exhibit 3.2
 BYLAWS OF
FEDFIRST FINANCIAL CORPORATION
  ARTICLE I. HOME OFFICE
  ARTICLE II. SHAREHOLDERS
 Section l. Place of Meetings
 Section 2. Annual Meeting
 Section 3. Special Meetings
 Section 4. Conduct of Meetings
 Section 5. Notice of Meetings




---



##### 



Section 6. Fixing of Record Date
 Section 7. Voting Lists
  Section 8. Quorum
 2




---



##### 



Section 9. Proxies
 Section 10. Voting of Shares in the Name of Two or More Persons
 Section 11. Voting of Shares by Certain Holders
 Section 12. Inspectors of Election
 3




---



##### 



Section 13. Nominating Committee provided, however, th
 Section 14. New Business provided, however, th
 4




---



##### 



Section 15. Informal Action by Shareholders
 ARTICLE III. BOARD OF DIRECTORS
 Section l. General Powers
 Section 2.
Number and Term
 Section 3. Regular Meetings
 Section 4. Qualification
 Section 5. Special Meetings
 5




---



##### 



Section 6. Notice
 Section 7. Quorum
 Section 8. Manner of Acting
 Section 9. Action Without a Meeting
 Section 10. Resignation
 Section 11. Vacancies
 6




---



##### 



Section 12. Compensation
 Section 13. Presumption of Assent
 Section 14. Removal of Directors
 Section 15. Integrity of Directors
 ARTICLE IV. EXECUTIVE AND OTHER COMMITTEES
 Section l. Appointment
 Section 2. Authority
 7




---



##### 



Section 3. Tenure
 Section 4. Meetings
 Section 5. Quorum
 Section 6. Action Without a Meeting
 Section 7. Vacancies
 Section 8. Resignations and Removal
 Section 9. Procedure
 8




---



##### 



Section 10. Other Committees
 ARTICLE V. OFFICERS
 Section l. Positions
 Section 2. Election and Term of Office
 Section 3. Removal
 Section 4. Vacancies
 Section 5. Remuneration
 9




---



##### 



ARTICLE VI. CONTRACTS, LOANS, CHECKS, AND DEPOSITS
 Section l. Contracts
 Section 2. Loans
 Section 3. Checks, Drafts, Etc.
 Section 4. Deposits
 ARTICLE VII. CERTIFICATES FOR SHARES AND THEIR TRANSFER
 Section l. Certificates for Shares
 Section 2. Transfer of Shares
 10




---



##### 



ARTICLE VIII. FISCAL YEAR
 st
 ARTICLE IX. DIVIDENDS
  ARTICLE X. CORPORATE SEAL
  ARTICLE XI. INDEMNIFICATION
  ARTICLE XII. AMENDMENTS
  11
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4250 

To create a point of order against legislation making nondefense discretionary 

appropriations that would increase the deficit during a period of high inflation. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 18 (legislative day, MAY 17), 2022 

Mr. SCOTT of Florida introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on the Budget 

A BILL 

To create a point of order against legislation making nondefense discretionary appropriations that would increase 

the deficit during a period of high inflation. 

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

3 SECTION 1. POINT OF ORDER IN THE SENATE AGAINST 

4 LEGISLATION MAKING NONDEFENSE DISCRE5 TIONARY APPROPRIATIONS THAT WOULD IN6 CREASE THE DEFICIT DURING A PERIOD OF 

7 HIGH INFLATION. 

8 (a) POINT OF ORDER.—It shall not be in order in 

9 the Senate to consider any bill, joint resolution, motion, 

10 amendment, amendment between the Houses, or conVerDate Sep 11 2014 15:54 May 23, 2022 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S4250.IS S4250

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4250 IS

1 ference report making appropriations for the revised non2 security category (as defined in section 250(c) of the Bal3 anced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 

4 (2 U.S.C. 900(c))) that, if enacted, would increase the def5 icit over the period of current fiscal year, the budget year, 

6 and the ensuing 9 fiscal years following the budget year 

7 if the annualized change in the most recently monthly re8 port on the Consumer Price Index for All-Urban Con9 sumers published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the 

10 Department of Labor is not less than 8 percent. 

11 (b) WAIVER AND APPEAL.—Subsection (a) may be 

12 waived or suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative 

13 vote of two-thirds of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. 

14 An affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members of the 

15 Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to sus16 tain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of 

17 order raised under subsection (a). 

18 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall apply on 

19 and after July 1, 2022. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### Darrell L. ANGLE, D.D.S., Appellant v. MISSOURI DENTAL BOARD, Respondent.

No. WD 50655.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Dec. 12, 1995.

James W. Riner, Jefferson City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Edward R. Ardini, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SMART, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and BERREY, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Darrell L. Angle, D.D.S., appeals a decision of the circuit court affirming a decision of the Administrative Hearing Commission that cause existed for the Missouri Dental Board to discipline the license of Dr. Angle. Angle’s license was suspended for six months, and he was placed on probation for five years following the suspension for incompetent performance of dental services.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 61 (Thursday, March 30, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16498-16499]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7807]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

Letters of Authorization to Take Marine Mammals

AGENCY: Notice of issuance of Letters of Authorization to take marine 
mammals incidental to oil and gas industry activities.

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 101(a)(5) of the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act of 1972, as amended, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service implementing regulations (50 CFR 18.27), notice is hereby given 
that Letters of Authorization to take polar bears and Pacific walrus 
incidental to oil and gas industry exploration activities have been 
issued to the following companies:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Company                  Activity               Date issued     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western Geophysical....  Exploration............  Jan. 3, 1995.         
Schlumberger Geco--      Exploration............  Jan. 3, 1995.         
 Prakla.                                                                
ARCO Alaska, Inc.......  Exploration............  Feb. 1, 1995.         
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., (BPX) and ARCO Alaska, Inc., (ARCO) 
were re-issued reoccurring Letters of Authorization to incidentially 
take polar bears and walrus during development and production 
activities based upon receipt of an annual monitoring report. BPX is 
authorized to incidentally take polar bear and walrus in the Prudhoe 
[[Page 16499]] Bay, Endicott and Milne Units. ARCO is authorized to 
incidentially take polar bear and walrus in the Kuparuk River Oilfield. 
Monitoring reports have been received and are on file at the Marine 
Mammals Management Office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David McGillivary or Mr. John W. 
Bridges at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine Mammal Management 
Office, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99503, (800) 362-5148 
or (907) 786-3810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All Letters of Authorization were issued in 
accordance with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Rules and 
Regulations ``Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified 
Activities'' (58 FR 60402; November 16, 1993).

    Dated: March 16, 1995.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 95-7807 Filed 3-29-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Marco Nunez, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fred W. Eggert, J., at *Wade/Huntley*and *Sandoval*hearings, jury trial and sentence), rendered April 13, 1988, which convicted defendant of three counts of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [3]) and sentenced him, as a second felony offender, to three concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of from 10 to 20 years, unanimously affirmed.

*299Defendant’s claims that the prosecutor elicited hearsay testimony, bolstered the complainant’s identification of defendant and that the prosecutor’s summation improperly shifted the burden of proof and played upon the jury’s sympathies were largely unpreserved for review. (CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Rodriguez,*159 AD2d 356; *People v Nuccie,*57 NY2d 818.) However, even if this court were to exercise its interest of justice jurisdiction, it would find the claim meritless. We have previously found that bolstering by a police officer in and of itself rarely constitutes reversible error except where there is danger that the jury will take the police officer’s testimony as a substitute for identification or if undue prominence is given to the bolstering testimony. *(People v Middleton,*159 AD2d 350.) No such showing has been made in the instant case and, in fact, one of the complainants in fact knew defendant, as defendant corroborated in a statement made at the precinct, which was admitted into evidence. Moreover, any such error would be deemed harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, arising not only out of the identification, but also defendant’s confession in connection with the robberies. *(People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230.)

Furthermore, the unpreserved claim that the prosecutor’s summation shifted to defendant the burden of proof, although only tangentially responsive to defense counsel’s summation, was harmless in view of the evidence of defendant’s guilt. *(Supra.)*The last unpreserved claim, that the prosecutor appealed to the sympathy of the jury, is based upon statements which merely reflected evidence adduced at trial. *(People v Rodriguez, supra.)*Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Carro, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7656

In Re: PAUL NAGY,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(5:98-hc-00951-BR)

Submitted: October 18, 2006 Decided: November 1, 2006

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul Nagy, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Paul Nagy petitions this court for a writ of mandamus,

seeking disqualification of the district court, his attorney, and

a therapist. Mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be used only

in extraordinary situations. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,

426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.

1987). Mandamus relief is only available when there are no other

means by which the relief sought could be granted, id., and may

not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Catawba Indian

Tribe, 973 F.2d 1133, 1135 (4th Cir. 1992). The party seeking

mandamus relief carries the heavy burden of showing that he has no

other adequate means to attain the relief he desires and that his

entitlement to such relief is clear and indisputable. Allied Chem.

Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980). Nagy has failed to

make the requisite showing, and we dismiss the mandamus petition.

We deny the motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, for

hearing en banc, and for disqualification of certain judges, and

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process. The emergency

motion to expedite is denied as moot.

PETITION DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Henry Brown, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, attempted petit larceny and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, arising out of the forgery of a stolen check.

After his trial but before sentencing, defendant moved to set aside the verdict, arguing that since the trial he had received an affidavit of codefendant Lawrence Evans absolving defendant of any involvement in the check-cashing fraud and implicating another individual instead. Defendant contended that, if this information was known to the People before trial, it constituted *Brady*material *(see, Brady v Maryland,*373 US *103183), and, if it was not known, it constituted newly discovered evidence (CPL 330.30 [3]).

The People opposed the motion on the ground that there was no showing that Evans had personal knowledge of the incidents giving rise to the six counts against defendant, that during his plea colloquy Evans had given two inconsistent versions of the crime to which he pleaded guilty, that his sworn statement submitted on the instant motion gave yet another version, and that Evans had orally given a fourth version to the Assistant District Attorney after his plea. The People also alleged that this information was conveyed to defense counsel, an allegation that defense counsel denied.

The court denied the motion on the grounds that Evans’ conclusory statement that defendant was not involved was not supported by any facts, and that the statement did not deal specifically with events on the date defendant was charged with crimes. The court noted that the presentence report indicated that Evans gave a different version of events every time he was asked to relate what had happened and concluded that Evans was not truthful. The author of the presentence report suspected collusion because Evans spent most of his interview trying to convince the investigator that defendant was innocent.

Defendant failed to request *Brady*material. He is not entitled to a new trial based on a *Brady*violation because he has not shown that there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the trial would have been different *(see, United States v Bagley,*473 US 667; *People v Chin,*67 NY2d 22; *cf., People v Vilardi,*76 NY2d 67). The same test applies to his argument that the affidavit was newly discovered evidence *(see, People v Burnette,*117 AD2d 987, 988).

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them lacking in merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Kubiniec, J.—criminal possession of forged instrument, second degree.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.