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

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-11698

Bear Down Brands 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 did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5139

Radio Systems Corp:

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

_5-30-2019.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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0529

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JASSIE LAYDELL WESTERMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including February 27, 2023, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 18 2023

01/18/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0529
| | Exhibit 23.1
| | ------------

Independent Auditors ́ Consent

|We consent to incorporation by
reference in the registration statements (Nos. 33-70478 and 333-62245) on Form S-8 and
(Nos. 333-12893 and 333-47621) on Form S-3 of Prime Medical Services, Inc. of our report
dated February 11, 2004, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Prime Medical
Services, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related
consolidated statements of income, stockholders equity, and cash flows for each of
the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2003 which report appears in the
December 31, 2003, Annual Report on Form 10-K of Prime Medical Services, Inc. Our report
refers to a change in the method of accounting for goodwill and other intangible assets
during 2002.
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/s/:KPMG LLP

Austin, TexasMarch 4,
2004
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MALACHI THOMAS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 62 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 2nd day of July, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Devernon Le Grande, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Fertig, J.), rendered September 15, 1987, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Court of Appeals has noted that when a trial court exercises its discretion in denying a motion for a separate trial, the "defendants’ burden [is] to demonstrate [that an] abuse of that discretion is a substantial one” *(People v Mahboubian,*74 NY2d 174, 183). It is clear from the record that the codefendant’s counsel did not indicate that his client would testify as the defendant’s attorney had alleged. Con*475trary to the defendant’s claim, we find that the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for a separate trial where he failed to show that the codefendant would testify if the trials were severed or that any testimony that the codefendant would give would tend to exculpate him *(see, People v Bornholdt,*33 NY2d 75, *cert denied sub nom. Victory v New York,*416 US 905; CPL 200.40 [1]). Bracken, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 58 (Monday, March 27, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 15669]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7498]



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



NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 94-AGL-23]


Establishment of Class D Airspace; Akron-Canton, OH

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects an error in the airspace designation of 
the Akron-Canton, OH Class D airspace area legal description published 
in a final rule on February 23, 1995, (60 FR 10014) establishing Class 
D airspace for Akron-Canton Regional Airport, Akron, OH.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, May 25, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nancy Cibic, Air Traffic Division, System Management Branch, AGL-530, 
Federal Aviation Administration, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, 
Illinois 60018, telephone (708) 294-7573.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    Federal Register Document 95-4439, published on February 23, 1995 
(60 FR 10014), established Class D airspace for Akron-Canton Regional 
Airport, Akron, Ohio. The Class D surface and radius area indicated in 
the legal description were published incorrectly. This action corrects 
those errors.

Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the 
airspace designation for Akron, Ohio, Class D airspace, as published in 
the Federal Register on February 23, 1995, (60 FR 10014), (Federal 
Register Document 95-4439, page 10014, column 2), is corrected in the 
final rule to the incorporation by reference 14 CFR 71.1 as follows:


Sec. 71.1  [Corrected]

Paragraph 5000  General

* * * * *

AGL OH D Akron-Canton, OH  [Corrected]

(Lat. 40 deg.54'59''N., long. 81 deg.26'32''W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 
5,200 feet MSL within a 5-mile radius of the Akron-Canton Regional 
Airport, OH. This Class D airspace area is effective during the 
specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to 
Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be published in 
the Airport Facility Directory.
* * * * *
    Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois on March 16, 1995.
Roger Wall,
Manager, Air Traffic Division.
[FR Doc. 95-7498 Filed 3-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4177

New York Air Brake 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

_03.20.19.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 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
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5162 

To amend the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy 

Act of 1977 to extend education grant programs for Alaska Native 

serving institutions and Native Hawaiian serving institutions, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 4, 2023 

Ms. TOKUDA (for herself, Mr. CASE, and Mrs. PELTOLA) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the National Agricultural Research, Extension, 

and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 to extend education 

grant programs for Alaska Native serving institutions 

and Native Hawaiian serving institutions, 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 ‘‘Parity for Alaska Na5 tive and Native Hawaiian Students in Agriculture Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5162 IH

1 SEC. 2. EDUCATION GRANTS TO ALASKA NATIVE SERVING 

2 INSTITUTIONS AND NATIVE HAWAIIAN SERV3 ING INSTITUTIONS. 

4 Section 1419B of the National Agricultural Research, 

5 Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 

6 3156) is amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (a)— 

8 (A) by redesignating paragraph (3) as 

9 paragraph (4); 

10 (B) by inserting after paragraph (2) the 

11 following: 

12 ‘‘(3) GRANT PERIOD.—A grant made under this 

13 subsection shall be for a period of not more than 3 

14 years.’’; and 

15 (C) in paragraph (4) (as so redesignated), 

16 by striking ‘‘$10,000,000 in fiscal years 2001 

17 through 2023’’ and inserting ‘‘$10,000,000 for 

18 fiscal year 2023 and $15,000,000 for each of 

19 fiscal years 2024 through 2028’’; and 

20 (2) in subsection (b)— 

21 (A) by redesignating paragraph (3) as 

22 paragraph (4); 

23 (B) by inserting after paragraph (2) the 

24 following: 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 5162 IH

1 ‘‘(3) GRANT PERIOD.—A grant made under this 

2 subsection shall be for a period of not more than 3 

3 years.’’; and 

4 (C) in paragraph (4) (as so redesignated), 

5 by striking ‘‘$10,000,000 for each of fiscal 

6 years 2001 through 2023’’ and inserting 

7 ‘‘$10,000,000 for fiscal year 2023 and 

8 $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2024 

9 through 2028’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CFO
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Global as of the dates
and for periods presented as required by such Report.
 /s/ PETER S. ATKINSONPeter S. AtkinsonPresident and Chief Financial OfficerFebruary 22, 2008
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5124

Bergstrom, 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 did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

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
We have made a decision in 2016 to bring production of new programs from China to the US. In order 

to do that we had to import the molds as they are much more expensive to build in North America.

We actually imported molds for the first time in 2017. We imported 18 molds for 6 different programs. 

Our ability to import the molds enables us to have the production in the US.
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-2018-0025-3070

Mabuchi Motor America Corp:

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

_05.09.19.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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
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-2018-0025-3017

LED Technologies: 

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

_05.09.19.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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
SUPERIOR COURT

OF THE

STATE OF DELAWARE

JOHN A. PARKINS, JR. NEW CASTLE COUNTY COURTHOUSE

JUDGE 500 NORTH KING STREET, SUITE 10400

WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801-3733

TELEPHONE: (302) 255-2584

May 11, 2016

Richard Galperin, Esquire

Joshua H. Meyeroff, Esquire

Morris James LLP

500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500

P.O. Box 2306

Wilmington, Delaware 19899-2306

Re: Alissa Porter

 v. Christiana Care Health Services, Inc.,

a Delaware corporation, et al

 C.A. No. N16C-02-231 JAP

Dear Counsel:

Presently before the court are requests from some of the defendants to 

determine whether the Affidavit of Merit filed by Plaintiff satisfies 18 Del. C. 

§ 6853. The court has done so and finds that the affidavit satisfies the 

requirements found in section 6853.

In their requests to review the Affidavit of Merit the defendants ask the 

court to determine if the “Affidavit of Merit states all its opinions with 

reasonable medical probability.” The affiant expresses his opinions to a 

reasonable degree of medical probability. The court takes this occasion to 

note that this may be greater than the standard required by section 6853. 

Nowhere does the statute require that opinions in Affidavits of Merit be 
2

expressed to a reasonable degree of medical probability. All that is required 

is that a qualified expert attest “that there are reasonable grounds to believe 

that the applicable standard of care was breached by the named defendant 

or defendants and that the breach was a proximate cause of injury or 

injuries claimed in the complaint.” 18 Del. C. § 6853(c). It seems to the 

court that the “reasonable grounds to believe” specified in the statute is not 

as stringent as “reasonable degree of medical probability.” The court is 

aware, of course, that expert trial testimony must meet the reasonabledegree-of-medical-probability standard. But the purpose of affidavit of merit 

requirement of section 6853 is to screen frivolous medical negligence claims. 

That limited purpose does not require the same degree of reliability required 

of trial testimony. As the Supreme Court has written:

This Section requires that a qualified medical 

professional review a plaintiff's claim, to determine 

and then to state that there are reasonable grounds 

to believe that the health care provider breached the 

applicable standard of care that caused the injuries 

claimed in the complaint. Medical experts need not 

couch their opinions in legal terms, state the facts 

that underly their determination, or to articulate the 

standard of care with a high degree of legal precision 

or “magic words.”

Dishmon v. Fucci, 32 A.3d 338, 344 (Del. 2011) (internal footnotes omitted.)

Very truly yours,

John A. Parkins, Jr.

oc: Prothonotary

cc: Robert J. Leoni, Esquire, Shelsby & Leoni, Wilmington, Delaware
Independent Auditors’ Consent

The Board ofDirectorsPillowtex Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement (no. 333-91482) on Form S-8 of PillowtexCorporation of our report dated March 28, 2003, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Pillowtex Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 28, 2002 and December 29, 2001, and the related consolidated statements of operations,shareholders’ equity (deficit), and cash flows for the seven-month period ended December 28, 2002, the five-month period ended June 1, 2002, and each of the two years in the period ended December 29, 2001, and the related financial statementschedule, which report appears in the December 28, 2002 annual report on Form 10-K of Pillowtex Corporation.

Our report contains an explanatory paragraph, which refers to achange in the Company’s method of accounting for goodwill and other intangible assets.

Our report also contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company andsubstantially all of its subsidiaries (collectively, the Debtors) filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (Chapter 11). The Debtors operated their business under the jurisdiction of Chapter 11 andthe United States Bankruptcy Court in Delaware (the Bankruptcy Court) from November 14, 2000 until May 24, 2002. On May 24, 2002, the Bankruptcy Court approved the Debtors' plan of reorganization and the Debtors emerged from their Chapter 11proceedings. Pillowtex Corporation and subsidiaries, the successor companies, have incurred significant operating losses and negative operating cash flows since their emergence from their Chapter 11 proceedings on May 24, 2002, and when consideredwith other matters discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements raise substantial doubt about their ability to continue as a going concern. The accompanying consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that mightresult from the outcome of this uncertainty.

 

|   |   |   |         |
|--------|--------|--------|--------------|
|        |   |   | /s/ KPMG LLP |

Charlotte, North CarolinaMarch 28, 2003