alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4305 

To limit the authority of the World Health Organization on the United 

States and to oppose amendments to the WHO Constitution that have 

not been approved by Congress. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 25, 2022 

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

referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

A BILL 

To limit the authority of the World Health Organization 

on the United States and to oppose amendments to the 

WHO Constitution that have not been approved by Congress. 

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

3 SECTION 1. WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION. 

4 (a) EFFECT OF WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION DI5 RECTIVES AND ORDERS ON THE UNITED STATES.—Not6 withstanding any other provision of law, the United States 

7 shall not be bound by any directive or order issued by the 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4305 IS

1 World Health Assembly, the World Health Organization, 

2 or any agent or branch of the World Health Organization. 

3 (b) OPPOSITION TO AMENDMENTS TO THE CON4 STITUTION OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION AND

5 ANY OTHER AGREEMENTS AMONG MEMBER STATES

6 WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL.—The Secretary of 

7 Health and Human Services and any other United States 

8 official designated by the President to represent the 

9 United States at the World Health Organization in any 

10 capacity shall use the voice, vote, and influence of the 

11 United States to oppose any amendments to the Constitu12 tion of the World Health Organization and any other 

13 agreements among the member states unless Congress has 

14 enacted a joint resolution in support of such amendments. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3347

Rikon Power Tools 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,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

572 CA 16-01895 PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CARNI, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION BETWEEN CITY OF BUFFALO, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

AND MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BRAND-ON SERVICES, INC., RESPONDENT.

-------------------------------------------------- MORTON H. WITTLIN, INTERVENOR-PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

FREID AND KLAWON, WILLIAMSVILLE (ADAM B. CONNERS OF COUNSEL), FOR INTERVENOR-PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
TIMOTHY A. BALL, CORPORATION COUNSEL, BUFFALO (DAVID M. LEE OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Timothy J. Walker, A.J.), entered January 11, 2016. The judgment granted petitioner’s motion to dismiss the complaint of intervenor-plaintiff Morton H. Wittlin.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.
Memorandum: Intervenor-plaintiff Morton H. Wittlin commenced this action against petitioner, the City of Buffalo (City), seeking a declaration that he has a valid security interest in certain floating docks in the Erie Basin Marina. The City moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) for failure to state a cause of action and for a declaration that ownership of the floating docks is free and clear of any right or interest possessed by Wittlin. Supreme Court granted the City’s motion, dismissed the complaint, and made the declaration sought by the City.
As a preliminary matter, we note that because this is a declaratory judgment action, the court erred in dismissing the complaint ( see Tumminello v Tumminello , 204 AD2d 1067, 1067; see generally Maurizzio v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. , 73 NY2d 951, 954). In any event, we conclude that the court erred in granting the substantive relief sought by the City. Contrary to the City’s view, its evidentiary submissions do not conclusively establish that the City owned the docks in 2009 and that Wittlin does not have a valid security interest in the docks ( see Donald Braasch Constr. Inc. v State Ins. Fund , 98 AD3d 1302, 1302-1304 ; Pittsford Plaza Co. LP v TLC-2- 572 CA 16-01895

W. LLC , 45 AD3d 1272, 1273-1274 ; see generally Fillman v Axel , 63 AD2d 876, 876).

Entered: May 5, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
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-2018-0025-4626

Yanfeng US Automotive Interior Systems I 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/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
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4119 

To reauthorize the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 28, 2022 

Mr. LEE (for himself, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. LUJA ́N, Mr. HEINRICH, Ms. SINEMA, 

Mr. KELLY, Mr. RISCH, Ms. ROSEN, Ms. CORTEZ MASTO, Ms. LUMMIS, 

Mr. ROMNEY, Mr. BOOKER, and Mr. HICKENLOOPER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and 

passed 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. 

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 ‘‘RECA Extension Act 

5 of 2022’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE RADIATION EXPOSURE 

7 COMPENSATION ACT. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3(d) of the Radiation Ex9 posure Compensation Act (Public Law 101–426; 42 

10 U.S.C. 2210 note) is amended— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4119 CPS

1 (1) by striking the first sentence and inserting 

2 ‘‘The Fund shall terminate on the date that is 2 

3 years after the date of enactment of the RECA Ex4 tension Act of 2022.’’; and 

5 (2) by striking ‘‘22-year period’’ and inserting 

6 ‘‘2-year period’’. 

7 (b) LIMITATION ON CLAIMS.—Section 8(a) of the Ra8 diation Exposure Compensation Act (Public Law 101– 

9 426; 42 U.S.C. 2210 note) is amended by striking ‘‘within 

10 22 years after the date of the enactment of the Radiation 

11 Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 2000’’ and 

12 inserting ‘‘not later than 2 years after the date of enact13 ment of the RECA Extension Act of 2022’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without **

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

jlf/Inventory

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA CORALIA BARRERA CORTEZ,

AKA Maria Cortez, Maria Coralia Cortez,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-74032

Agency No. A094-447-907

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 17, 2009 ** 

Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, AND TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

Maria Barrera Cortez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision affirming the immigration

FILED

NOV 30 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
jlf/Inventory 2 08-74032

judge's denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Santos-Lemus v.

Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel reversal of the IJ's conclusion that petitioner

failed to establish that the harm she suffered at the hands of gang members in El

Salvador was on account of a protected ground. See Ramos-Lopez v. Holder, 563

F.3d 855, 858-62 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that resistance to gang activity is not

a particular social group for the purpose of establishing nexus to a protected

ground); Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2001) (personal

retribution is not persecution on account of a protected ground). Accordingly,

petitioner's asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims fail.

We lack jurisdiction to review petitioner's due process contention, regarding

the IJ's acceptance of petitioner's proffered asylum statement in lieu of direct

testimony, because she did not exhaust it before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft,

358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
**Exhibit
32.1**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
OF PERIODIC REPORT**
 **PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350**
 
 Pursuant
to, and for purposes only of, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned hereby certifies
that (i) the Quarterly Report of Peoples Bancorp, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the
quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) o f the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of Peoples Bancorp, Inc. and Subsidiary.
 
 ****Date: May 11, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Thomas G.
    StevensonThomas G. StevensonPresident/Chief
      Executive Officer
      &
      Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,026,438
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,351,740
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  8,956,949
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            21,235,410
<PP&E>                                      17,360,302
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              58,767,197
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,605,273
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        44,961
<OTHER-SE>                                  32,205,514
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                58,767,197
<SALES>                                     76,972,776
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            76,972,776
<CGS>                                       65,902,280
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               65,902,280
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,078,113
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,176,623
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                843,931
<INCOME-TAX>                                   451,790
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            451,790
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 62,231
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   329,910
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.2







Exhibit 10.2




ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC.




RESOLUTIONS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

ADOPTED ON FEBRUARY 3, 2010




RESOLVED, that all shares of common stock of this Corporation granted as restricted
stock to each of Ms. Alewine and Messrs. Istock, Johnson, McCormick, Rockwell, Speer and
Toot pursuant to this Corporation’s 1995 Directors Stock Plan, as amended, the 2003
Directors Stock Plan, as amended and the separate Restricted Stock Agreements as set forth
in the list presented to, and ordered filed with the supporting records for, this meeting
between such persons and the Corporation (the “Restricted Stock Agreements”), are deemed
fully earned effective as of February 26, 2010; and further



RESOLVED, that each of the Restricted Stock Agreements is amended to delete in its
entirety paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 1, Earning of Restricted Shares, and to replace
it with a new paragraph to read in its entirety as follows:




“You will be deemed to have fully earned all the Restricted Shares subject to
this Restricted Stock Agreement as of February 26, 2010.”
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT****REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in GlobalIndustries, Ltd.'s (the "Company") Registration Statement Nos. 33-58048, 33-89778, and 333-69949 on Form S-8 and in Registration No. 333-86325  on Form S-3 of our reports dated March14, 2005,  relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statementschedule of  Global Industries, Ltd. and management's report on the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K ofthe Company for the year ended December 31, 2004.

 

/s/  DELOITTE & TOUCHE  LLP

 

Houston, TexasMarch 14, 2005
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-2018-0025-3688

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
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-2018-0025-4044

Enerpac:

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
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 7592

DERICK CHRISTOPHER KESSING , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
UNKNOWN , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. David J. Novak , District Judge. ( 3:21

- cv
- 00504

- DJN

- EWH )

Submitted : January 20, 2022 Decided: January 25, 2022

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Derick Christopher Kessing, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Derick Christopher Kessing seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his

action without prejudice as he requested . This court may exercise jurisdiction only over
final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). The order Kessing seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Kessing’s motion to compel and

dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### STATE AUTO INSURANCE CO., Respondent, v. Shahrokh & Angela GOLI, Appellants.

No. 65998.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

March 28, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 26, 1995.

Application to Transfer Denied May 30, 1995.

Anthony Cipriano, Cipriano *&*Haekmann, Richmond Heights, for appellants.

Robert William Cockerham, Brown & James, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before AHRENS, P.J., and SIMON and KAROHL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Insured, Shahrokh and Angela Goli, appeal from a default judgment rendered in favor of insurer, State Auto Insurance Company, voiding coverage under an insurance policy in its declaratory judgment action to declare the rights of the parties under the policy on insured’s apartment building which was destroyed by fire. Insurer filed a motion to dismiss the appeal and for sanctions.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b), thereby denying insurer’s motion to dismiss and for sanctions. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for our holding.