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

September 26, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-4242

Valmet, 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_2019.pdf. 

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 exclusion notice. The scope of the exclusion is governed by the scope of the 10-digit HTSUS 

subheadings and product descriptions in the annex to the product exclusion notice, and not by the 

product descriptions set out in any particular request for exclusion. 

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
#### DILLING COTTON MILLS v. LOWELL COTTON YARN COMPANY.

(Filed 8 December, 1926.)

Appeal and Error — Reference—Bindings of Fact — Evidence—Review.

The findings of fact by a referee upon competent evidence affirmed in the Superior Court on appeal thereto, is not reviewable on the further appeal to the Supreme Court.

Appeal by defendant from judgment of Superior Court of GastoN County, rendered 6 February, 1926, by *Harding, J.*Affirmed.

Action to recover balance due upon account for goods sold and delivered; in defense, defendant pleads as counterclaim damages for breach of contract alleged in tbe answer. Plaintiff in its reply denies tbe contract.

From judgment upon report of tbe referee tbat plaintiff recover of defendant tbe sum of $865.67, witb interest and costs, defendant appealed to tbe Supreme Court.

*O. Max Gcurdner, 0. F. Mason, and George B. Mason for plaintiff.*

*Mangurn & Benny for defendant.*

Per Curiam:.

Tbe referee, to wbom tbis action was referred for trial, found as a fact tbat “no enforceable contract was entered into by and between tbe plaintiff and defendant on or about 31 January, 1918, tbe basis of defendant’s counterclaim.” He therefore concluded as a matter of law tbat tbe defendant is not entitled to recover any damages of plaintiff as a counterclaim. To tbis finding of fact and conclusion of law defendant excepted. Tbe judge overruled these exceptions, and defendant upon its appeal to tbis Court assigns same as error.

Tbe referee’s conclusion of law tbat defendant was not entitled to recover damages of plaintiff was manifestly correct, if there was no error in bis finding of fact. There was evidence at tbe bearing before tbe referee sufficient to support bis finding of fact, which was approved by tbe trial judge. Such finding is therefore not reviewable upon appeal to tbis Court. *Sanders v. Griffin,*191 N. C., 453, and cases cited. “It is tbe accepted position witb us tbat tbe findings of fact by a referee, concurred in by tbe judge, are conclusive when there is competent evidence to sustain them.” *Comrs. v. Abee Bros.,*175 N. C., 701. Tbe assignment of error cannot be sustained. Tbe judgment is

Affirmed.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed October 27, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-1653

Lower Tribunal No. 20-11446

________________

Moss & Associates, LLC, etc., et al.,

Petitioners,

vs.

Cory Lapin,

Respondent.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for MiamiDade County, Carlos Lopez, Judge.

Weinberg Wheeler Hudgins Gunn & Dial, LLC, and Steven D. 

Gonzalez and Jose O. De La Cruz, for petitioners.

Shaked Law Firm, P.A., and Sagi Shaked and Cory D. Lapin, for 

respondent.

Before HENDON, MILLER, and GORDO, JJ. 

HENDON, J.
2

Moss & Associates, LLC, Safety Guys, LLC, and Downtown 

Development Holdings, LLC (collectively, “Petitioners”), seek certiorari 

review of the trial court’s order granting Cory Lapin’s (“Respondent”) 

second amended motion for leave to file an amended complaint to add a 

claim for punitive damages pursuant to section 768.72, Florida Statutes 

(2021). We deny the petition.

The record before this Court reflects that the trial court complied with 

the procedural requirements of section 768.72. The Respondent proffered 

evidence in support of his claim for punitive damages, and following a 

hearing, the trial court entered an order finding that the Respondent’s 

proffer was sufficient to support the claim. See E.R. Truck & Equip. Corp. 

v. Gomont, 300 So. 3d 1230, 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020); see also Event 

Depot Corp. v. Frank, 269 So. 3d 559, 561-63 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)

(recognizing that the scope of an appellate court’s certiorari review is 

limited to whether the trial court complied with the procedural requirements 

of section 768.72, but certiorari review is not available to review the 

sufficiency of the respondent’s evidentiary proffer). We therefore deny the 

petition for writ of certiorari.1

1 The Petitioners also sought to quash the portion of the order under review 

referencing Downtown Development Holdings because the Respondent’s 

second amended motion to add a claim for punitive damages did not 
3

Petition denied.

advance any argument as to Downtown Development Holdings. This point 

is well taken but is now moot because the trial court has since entered an 

agreed order removing Downtown Development Holdings from the order 

under review. The final argument raised by the Petitioners is also now 

moot.
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-2018-0025-2417

Teadit North America: 

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
1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 18, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

___________________________

No. 03-10421

___________________________

In the Matter of: JOHN ROBERDEAU; ROBERT GEISLER; 

STAGE FRIGHT, LLC; GEISLER ROBERDEAU INC. 

 Debtors

BRIARPATCH LIMITED LP; GERARD F. RUBIN,

Appellants,

VERSUS

SCOTT M. SEIDEL, Trustee; JOHN ROBERDEAU, ROBERT GEISLER,

Appellees 

consolidated with

___________________________

No. 03-10475

___________________________

In the Matter of: JOHN ROBERDEAU; ROBERT GEISLER; 

STAGE FRIGHT, LLC; GEISLER ROBERDEAU INC. 

 Debtors

GERALD F. RUBIN; BRIARPATCH LIMITED LP,

Appellants,

VERSUS

SCOTT M. SEIDELL, Chapter 7 Trustee; JOHN ROBERDEAU, ROBERT GEISLER,

Appellees 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division

3:01-CV-1971-L
1

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstancesset forth in 5THCIR. R. 47.5.4.

2

Before DAVIS, WIENER and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

These two consolidated appeals arise from the bankruptcy of John Roberdeau, Robert

Geisler, Stage Fright, LLC, and Geisler Roberdeau Inc. (the “Debtors”), and are one part of a

mass of litigation between the parties. 

In Case No. 03-10421, Appellant challenges the bankruptcy court’s sale of estate property

at auction to the Debtors. However, an appeal of a sale by the bankruptcy court does not affect

the validity of a sale in good faith unless the authorization and sale were stayed pending appeal. 

11 U.S.C. § 363(m). The Appellants failed to obtain a stay. We accept the bankruptcy court’s

implicit finding of good faith on the part of the Debtors made in its bench ruling of June 13, 2001. 

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as moot. See Ginther v. Ginther Trusts (In re Ginther

Trusts), 238 F.3d 686 (5th Cir. 2001); In re Gilchrist, 891 F.2d 559 (5th Cir. 1990). 

In Case No. 03-10475, Appellant challenges the abandonment to the Debtors by the

Trustee of certain causes of action of the Debtors. The Appellants failed to timely appeal the

Abandonment Order or timely request an extension of the deadline to appeal, electing rather to

file a Motion to Vacate the Abandonment Order which the bankruptcy court denied and the

district court affirmed. We review the bankruptcy court’s decision on the Motion to Vacate for

abuse of discretion. In this case of intentional abandonment by the Trustee, the bankruptcy court

correctly concluded that the abandonment was final upon entry of its order and that it had no

authority to grant relief related to that property. See Collier on Bankruptcy, § 554.02[3]. The
3

district court correctly affirmed the bankruptcy court as the bankruptcy court did not abuse its

discretion in abandoning the causes of action to the Debtors or in refusing to revisit that decision

in response to the Motion to Vacate. 

Case No. 03-10421 - APPEAL DISMISSED.

Case No. 03-10475 - AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 10.8


 


DEMAND PROMISSORY NOTE


 



	
$U.S. 300,000.00

	
Date: July 23, 2010







 


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned promises to pay to the order of David Chen-Te Yen, the sum of Three Hundred Thousand dollars ($300,000.00), together with interest of 8% per annum compounded daily on the unpaid balance. The entire principal and any accrued interest shall be fully and immediately payable UPON DEMAND of any holder hereof.


 


Upon default in making payment within 5 days of demand, and providing this note is turned over for collection, the undersigned agrees to pay all reasonable legal fees and costs of collection to the extent permitted by law. This note shall take effect as a sealed instrument and be enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of New York. All parties to this note waive presentment, notice of non-payment, protest and notice of protest, and agree to remain fully bound notwithstanding the release of any party, extension or modification of terms, or discharge of any collateral for this note.


 


In the event payment is not timely made with respect to this Note, interest due hereon will accrue on the unpaid balance of the principal and the interest accrued and unpaid at the rate of 16% per annum, compounded daily, from and after the date of such failure to pay.


 


NOTICE TO BORROWER: THIS IS A DEMAND NOTE AND SO MAY BE COLLECED BY THE LENDER AT ANY TIME.  A NEW NOTE MUTUALLY AGREED UPON AND SUBSEQUENTLY ISSUED MAY CARRY A HIGHER OR LOWER RATE OF INTEREST.








	  	  	
GOOD HARBOR ACQUISITON CORP.


	  	  	  	  
	
Witnessed:

	  	  	  
	  	  	  	  
	
  

	  	
By:

	
/s/ Parsh Patel


	
[Witness’s signature]

	  	  	
Parsh Patel, Chief Executive Officer


	
  

	  	  	  
	
[Witness’s typed or printed name]
Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual Balance 

in 75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Ann

Balan

75th 

-1.92% -5.70% 0.97% 2.92% -0.96% -2.7

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2005 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actu

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Level of Monthly Benefits (PIA)

Proposed Provision: Progressive price indexing of PIA formula factors beginning with individueligible for OASDI benefits in 2012. Create new bend point at the 50th percentile of earners. current-law benefits for earners at the 50th percentile and below and reduce upper 2 formula and 15%) such that maximum worker benefit grows by inflation rather than the growth in aver

January 4, 2006

Present Law Change From Present Law in Results with this prov

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

0.005.00

10.0015.0020.0025.00

2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075

Year

Percent

Cost rates with this provisionCost rates under present lawIncome rates with this provisionIncome rates under present law

OASDI tax rate schedule 

(employees and employers, each)

1993 and later 6.2%

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditu

0

100200300400500600700800900

1000

2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 205

Year

Percent

Present law with thi
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     This  Amendment  to  Employment Agreement (the "Amendment") is entered
into  this  16th  day  of May,  1996  by  and  between  Campo  Electronics,
Appliances and Computers, Inc., a Louisiana Corporation (the "Company") and
Anthony P. Campo (the "Executive").

                           WITNESSETH:

     WHEREAS, the Executive  is  presently  employed  by the Company as the
President and Chief Executive Officer, said employment being pursuant to an
Employment Agreement dated December 16, 1993 (the "Agreement").

     WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Board of  Directors  of the
Company  (the "Committee") recognizes that the Executive's contribution  to
the growth  and  success of the Company has been substantial and desires to
provide for the continued  employment  of  the Executive, and the Executive
desires to continue to serve the Company on  a full-time basis and upon the
terms and conditions of the Agreement as herein amended.

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the respective
representations and warranties and the mutual  covenants  set  forth in the
Agreement,  the  parties  hereto  hereby  agree  to amend the Agreement  as
follows:

     1.   The Initial Term of the Agreement as defined  in Section 3 of the
Agreement  is  hereby  extended  through  December  31, 1997.   Executive's
compensation  during  the  fourth year of the extended Initial  Term  shall
remain the same as currently provided in Section 4 of the Agreement for the
third year of the Initial Term.

     2.   Section 10 of the  Agreement  is  hereby amended to set forth the
following current addresses of the parties for purposes of notice:

          (a)  If to the Company:

               Campo Electronics, Appliances and Computers, Inc.
               109 Northpark Blvd., Suite 500
               Covington, LA 70433

or  at  such  other address as the Company may have  advised  Executive  in
writing; and

          (b) If to the Executive:

               Campo Electronics, Appliances and Computers, Inc.
               109 Northpark Blvd., Suite 500
               Covington, LA 70433

     3.   Except  as  specifically  amended  herein,  all  other  terms and
conditions  of  the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force  and
effect, and the Agreement,  as  amended  herein shall constitute the entire
understanding and agreement among the parties hereto.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as
of the day and year first above written.

                              CAMPO ELECTRONICS, APPLIANCES AND COMPUTERS, INC.

                              By: /s/ Mervin L. Trail, M.D.
                                 _________________________________________

                                 Name:  Mervin L. Trail, M.D.
                                 Title: Chairman, Compensation Committee

                              EXECUTIVE:

                                  /s/ Anthony P. Campo
                                __________________________________________
                                ANTHONY P. CAMPO
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                       Consent of Independent Accountants


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-70114, 33-87710, 33-93054, 33-93056, 333-09709, 33-99672,
333-49895, 333-49903, 333-72943 and 333-72945) and on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-
43127, 33-96838, 333-16165, 333-17347, and 333-65079) of our report dated
February 10, 2000, except for the first paragraph of Note M, as to which the
date is March 2, 2000, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of
Cambridge Technology Partners (Massachusetts), Inc. as of December 31, 1999 and
1998, and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1999,
which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to
the incorporation by reference of our report dated February 10, 2000 relating to
the financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-70114, 33-87710, 33-93054, 33-93056, 333-09709, 33-99672,
333-49895, 333-49903, 333-72943 and 333-72945) and on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-
43127, 33-96838, 333-16165, 333-17347 and 333-65079) of our report dated January
28, 2000 on our audits of the financial statements of Cambridge Technology
Capital Fund I L.P. as of December 31, 1999 and 1998 and for the years ended
December 31, 1999 and 1998 and for the period from October 17, 1997 (date of
inception) to December 31, 1997, which report is included in this Annual Report
on Form 10-K.





PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP



Boston, Massachusetts
March 27, 2000
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-2018-0025-3480

CW Bearing USA, Inc:

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
Exhibit 10.4

[CONFORMED
COPY]

I,
Juergen von Schwerin, certify that:

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to SBS Broadcasting S.A. and will be retained by SBS Broadcasting S.A. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

|May 15, 2003 |  | By: | /s/JUERGEN VON SCHWERINJuergen von Schwerin Chief Financial Officer
|------------ |  | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------

The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely 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) and is not being filed as part of the Form 20-F or as a separate disclosure document.

---

QuickLinks
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-2018-0025-3183

FCA US 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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel