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

November 13, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-1734

Culligan International Company:

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
3XEOLF9HUVLRQRI%&,

38030$1,)2/'&$67,1*35(6685(&217$,1,1*$$/80,180



3,$==$52%(57

35,&(3803&203$1<

2WKHU

12

3XEOLF9HUVLRQRI%&,


<(6

12

 .*

 .*

,03257,1*7+,63$57)520&+,1$&2676

385&+$6,1*5$:0$7(5,$/$1'0$&+,1,1*,7'20(67,&$//<&267
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 57 (Friday, March 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15542]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7329]



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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary; Draft Environmental Impact Statement for 
Disposal and Reuse of Jefferson Proving Ground, IN

AGENCY: Department of Defense, United States Army.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Public Law 100-526, the Defense Base 
Closure and Realignment Act of 1988, the Defense Base Closure and 
Realignment Commission recommended the closure of Jefferson Proving 
Ground and transfer of missions to Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona. This 
recommendation became law on January 5, 1989. Subject document focuses 
on the environmental impacts associated with the disposal and reuse of 
Jefferson Proving Ground.
    There would be no significant impacts in connection with any of the 
three disposal alternatives. High intensity reuse of Study Areas 2 
through 6, 8, and 10 would result in long term significant direct 
adverse impacts on land use. High intensity reuse of Study Areas 2 
through 8, 10, and 12 would result in long term significant direct 
adverse impacts on utilities and solid waste and biological resources.
    Medium intensity reuse of Study Areas 3 through 6, 8, and 10 would 
result in long term significant direct adverse impacts on utilities and 
solid waste. Medium intensity reuse of Study Area 7 would result in 
long term significant direct adverse impacts on pubic health and 
safety. High intensity reuse of Study Areas 3 through 6, 8, and 10 
would result in long term significant indirect adverse impacts on land 
use. The proposed action of disposal would not contribute to 
significant cumulative impacts.
    A scoping meeting was held in Madison, Indiana on February 11, 
1993. Public notices requesting input and comments from the public were 
issued in the regional area surrounding Jefferson Proving Ground.

DATES: Written public comments and suggestions received within 45 days 
of this Notice of Availability will be addressed in the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement can be 
obtained by writing to the United States Army Materiel Command, Attn: 
Mr. James Davidson, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333-
0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Paul Wilbur, (703) 847-4000.


    Dated: March 20, 1995.
Lewis D. Walker,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Environment, Safety and 
Occupational Health), OASA (IL&E).
[FR Doc. 95-7329 Filed 3-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Bob RIDINGS, Appellant.

No. 19463.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division One.

Oct. 31, 1994.

Rosalynn Koch, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Christine M. Kocot, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

MONTGOMERY, Judge.

Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. This Court affirms.

Movant was charged in the underlying criminal case with the offense of sexual assault in the second degree, § 566.050.1 On January 29, 1993, Movant entered a plea of guilty to this offense. He was sentenced on March 23, 1993, to a term of two years’ imprisonment. Movant was delivered to the department of corrections on March 31, 1993.

On November 5, 1993, Movant filed a *pro se*Rule 24.035 2 motion. The motion court denied Movant’s postconviction motion, finding it to be proeedurally barred as untimely.

In Movant’s single point, he attacks the dismissal of his motion by asserting that the time limits in Rule 24.035 operate to deny him due process of law, in that the rule makes no provision for the late filing of a postconviction motion for good cause shown. Movant concedes this issue has been rejected by the Missouri Supreme Court but argues this issue concerns a meritorious question of federal constitutional law.

Rule 24.035(b) provides that a motion under this rule “shall be filed within ninety days after the movant is delivered to the custody of the department of corrections.” In this case Movant was well past the filing deadline. The time limitation in this rule is valid, mandatory, reasonable, and serves the legitimate ends of avoiding delay in the processing of prisoners’ claims and preventing the litigation of stale claims. *Day v. State,*770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1989), *cert. denied,*493 U.S. 866, 110 S.Ct. 186, 107 L.Ed.2d 141 (1989). Failure to file a timely motion proeedurally bars a movant from seeking relief under the rule. *Thomas v. State,*808 S.W.2d 364, 365 (Mo. banc 1991). The time limitation in Rule 24.035(b) does not violate Movant’s right to due process. *191*Day v. State,*864 S.W.2d 24, 25 (Mo.App.1993).

Movant’s point has no merit. The judgment is affirmed.

SHRUM, C.J., and FLANIGAN, J., concur.

1

. Statutory references are to RSMo 1986.

2

. Rule references are to Missouri Rules of Court (1994).
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-2018-0025-3551

Crosman Corporation:

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 32
                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Salisbury  Bancorp,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending June 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
J. Cantele,  Jr.,  President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  and I,
Richard J.  Cantele,  Jr.,  Interim  Chief  Financial  Officer  of the  Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

Date: August 14, 2009

/s/ Richard J. Cantele, Jr.                 /s/ Richard J. Cantele, Jr.
    -------------------------------------       -------------------------------
    Richard J. Cantele, Jr.                     Richard J. Cantele, Jr.
    President and Chief Executive Officer       Interim Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Sledge, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.), rendered August 11, 1987, convicting him of murder in the second degree and manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court did not err by declining to charge the jury that one of the People’s witnesses was, as a matter of law, an accomplice to felony murder. Although the witness in question was part of a group that participated in three earlier robberies, the witness’s presence at the scene of a fourth robbery gave rise only to a question of fact as to his accomplice status to felony murder which the court correctly left for the jury’s determination *(see,*
      *482
      *People v Dorta,*46 NY2d 818; *People v Rivera,*154 AD2d 630; *cf., People v Cona,*49 NY2d 26). Furthermore, there is no evidence from which it could reasonably be inferred that the witness participated in or aided the defendant in intentional murder or manslaughter *(see, People v Jones,*73 NY2d 902; *People v Maldonado,*123 AD2d 788). Accordingly, the trial court correctly instructed the jury that, as a matter of law, the witness was not an accomplice to intentional murder or manslaughter. Bracken, J. P., Fiber, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OCTOBER 25, 2013

NO. 03-13-00472-CV

R. F., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND FIELD

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE JONES

THIS DAY came on to be submitted to this Court appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal in the 

above cause, and the Court having fully considered said motion, and being of the opinion that 

same should be granted: IT IS THEREFORE considered, adjudged and ordered that said 

motion is granted, and that the appeal is dismissed. It FURTHER appearing to the Court that 

appellant has filed an affidavit of inability to pay costs, it is FURTHER ordered that no costs of 

appeal be assessed against appellant; and that this decision be certified below for observance.
#### Paul R. LEWIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 47818.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Sept. 28, 1993.

Gary E. Brotherton, Office of State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before TURNAGE, C.J., and SMART and ELLIS, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from denial of Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief without an evidentia-ry hearing. Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.-16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 56 (Thursday, March 23, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15300]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7148]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[ES-960-1420-00; ES-047167, Group 152, Wisconsin]


Filing of Plat of Survey; Wisconsin

    The plat of the survey of an island in the Milwaukee River, in 
section 24, Township 11 North, Range 21 East, Fourth Principal 
Meridian, Wisconsin, will be officially filed in Eastern States, 
Springfield, Virginia at 7:30 a.m., on May 1, 1995.
    The survey was requested by the District Manager, Milwaukee 
District Office, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
    All inquiries or protests concerning the technical aspects of the 
survey must be sent to the Chief Cadastral Surveyor, Eastern States, 
Bureau of Land Management, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 
22153, prior to 7:30 a.m. May 1, 1995.
    Copies of the plat will be made available upon request and 
prepayment of the reproduction fee of $2.75 per copy.

    Dated: March 14, 1995.
Stephen G. Kopach,
Chief Cadastral Surveyor.
[FR Doc. 95-7148 Filed 3-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-M
blood sample while in possession of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police

Department because they were untimely disclosed. The district court denied Parlet's motion to exclude the printouts because his challenge to the chain of custody was untimely and Parlet fails to demonstrate that this constituted an abuse of discretion. See NRS 174.295(2);Mclellan, 124 Nev. at 267, 182 P.3d at 109.

Third, Parlet asserts that the district court abused its discretion by preventing him from questioning the State's expert witness about her personal knowledge of errors made by the chemist who previously tested his blood sample. We conclude that the district court abused its discretion by disallowing this line of questioning. See NRS 48.015; NRS 48.035(1). The error however, was harmless, particularly in light of the strong evidence supporting the conclusion that the blood tested was Parlet's and the expert's testimony that she had no personal knowledge of any errors relating to toxicology. See Valdez v. State, 124 Nev. 1172, 1189, 196 P.3d 465, 476 (2008) (defining nonconstitutional harmless error). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

GibBons

,J. Saitta Douglas cc: Hon. Kimberly A. Wanker, District Judge Christopher R. Arabia Nye County District Attorney Attorney General/Carson City Nye County Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A 2
#### KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION, Movant, v. Thomas L. RAY, Respondent.

No. 90-SC-989-KB.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

April 11, 1991.

Scott D. Majors, Asst. Bar Counsel, Kentucky Bar Ass’n, Frankfort, for movant.

*638Thomas L. Ray, Robert M. Kaercher, Louisville, for respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER

STEPHENS, Chief Justice.

The Kentucky Bar Association’s motion for reconsideration pursuant to CR 76.38 is granted. The order entered herein on February 14, 1991, is withdrawn and the following is substituted therefor.

Pursuant to SCR 3.370, the Kentucky Bar Association has recommended that respondent, Thomas L. Ray, be disbarred from the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

On August 18, 1989, respondent was charged by the Inquiry Tribunal with six counts of unethical and unprofessional conduct. By unanimous vote of the Board of Governors, he was found guilty of commingling estate funds with his own personal and business funds, conversion of estate assets, and neglect of his professional duties by failing to finally settle an estate for approximately fourteen years.

Respondent has not requested that this Court review the action of the Board of Governors; indeed, respondent has frivolously challenged the authority of the Board of Governors and this Court to entertain a disciplinary proceeding against him, a proposition firmly resolved against respondent in *KBA v. Vincent,*Ky., 538 S.W.2d 39 (1976), and *In re Sparks,*267 Ky. 93, 101 S.W.2d 194 (1937).

Upon review of the Board’s decision and the entire record, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Respondent, Thomas L. Ray, should be and is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the courts of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, as defined by SCR 3.020, until such time as the Supreme Court of Kentucky enters an order reinstating his membership in the Kentucky Bar Association.

2. Respondent shall not file an application for reinstatement until the expiration of five (5) years from the date of this order.

3. Any application for reinstatement filed by respondent shall be governed by SCR 3.520 or any subsequent amendment to SCR 3.520.

4. Respondent shall pay the costs of this proceeding.

5. Respondent is directed to notify, in the manner set out in SCR 3.390 within ten (10) days of the date of this order, all courts in which he has matters pending and all clients for whom he is actively involved in litigation and similar legal matters, of his inability to continue to represent them, and of the necessity and urgency of promptly retaining new counsel.

6. The Master Commissioner of the Jefferson Circuit Court is directed to file a report of his actions as Receiver, pursuant to the order entered herein on May 4, 1989, and upon approval thereof, he shall be discharged and relieved of any further duties thereunder.

All concur.
Order entered October 9, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00347-CR

DANIEL ANDRE THOMAS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F19-00118-L

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s October 7, 2019 second motion to extend the time to file 

appellant’s brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant’s brief filed on or before 

November 8, 2019. If appellant’s brief is not filed by November 8, 2019, this appeal may be 

abated for the trial court to make findings in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 38.8

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
Opinion issued March 14 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 18
- 00643
- CV

——————————— TERRY BUCHALA , Appella nt

V. AUSTIN COUNTY SHERIF F ’S OFFICE AND ALL STAR WRECKER , Appell e e s
On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Austin County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 17CV
- 5488

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Terry Buchala , has neither established indigence nor paid , or made arrangements to pay , the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(b). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not adequately respond. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 37.3(b), 42.3(b). Accordingly, we2

di smiss the appeal for want of prosecution. We dismiss any pending motions as

moot. PER CU RIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Goodman and Countiss

.
Viy-.-6Am--f 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 24-0356

MARK MULLEE,

 Plaintiff and Appellant,

 v.

WINTER SPORTS, INC., d/b/a 

WHITEFISH

MOUNTAIN RESORT, DOES 1-5, 

individually,

 Defendants and Appellees.

ORDER OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMENT

This appeal being subject to M.R.App.P. 7, and the parties having failed to jointly 

and timely select a mediator under M.R.App.P., 7(4),(c),

IT IS ORDERED THAT , whose name appears next on the list of attorneys 

desiring appointment as mediators for Money Judgments appeals which is maintained 

pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby appointed to conduct the mediation process 

required by M.R.App.P., 7(5), and 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time periods set forth in M.R.App.P., 

7(5)(d) shall run from the date of this order of appointment.

A true copy of this order is being mailed to counsel of record for the parties, or to 

the parties individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof.

DATED this N/A.

Bowen Greenwood, Clerk of the Supreme Court

c: Ian Philip Gillespie, Christopher Cameron Di Lorenzo, Mikel L. Moore, David F. 

Stufft

07/01/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0356
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  
    
    The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended September 25,
2005 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Jack H. BrownJack H. BrownChairman of the Board, President,

and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)December 21, 2005/s/ Phillip J. SmithPhillip J. SmithSenior Vice President, and

and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)December 21, 2005
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6266

EDSON FURTADO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CORNELIUS J. VAUGHEYS, Judge; STATE OF MARYLAND,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:07-cv03251-RWT)

Submitted: April 24, 2008 Decided: April 30, 2008

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edson Furtado, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Edson Furtado appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

Furtado’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. Furtado v. Vaugheys, No.

8:07-cv-03251-RWT (D. Md. Jan. 31, 2008). We 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.

AFFIRMED