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

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4122

Tianhai Electric North America:

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,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 20

- 00145

- CR

J IMMY D UANE E ASTER

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 43rd District Court

of Parker County ( CR20

- 0661 )

February 10, 2022

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wallach

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial co urt’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _ /s/ Mike Wallach

___________________ Justice Mike Wallach
Exhibit 99
                             Selected Information
                              Relating to Series
                        Series 1995-1 Certificates,
                        Series 1996-1 Certificates,
                     Series 1996-2 Certificates, and
                       Series 1997-1 Certificates from
                  January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000
                 --------------------------------------------
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>



               Series 1995-1    Series 1996-1    Series 1996-2     Series 1997-1
               6.50% Auto       5.50% Auto       Floating Rate     Floating Rate
               Loan Asset       Loan Asset       Loan Asset        Loan Asset
               Backed           Backed           Backed            Backed
               Certificates     Certificates     Certificates      Certificates
               ------------     ------------     -------------     -------------
<S>            <C>             <C>              <C>              <C>


Interest
Paid          $ 46,828,125.04  $ 44,208,333.38  $ 64,616,199.99   $ 50,284,791.68

Servicing
Fee Paid      $  6,666,666.64  $  8,000,000.04  $  9,600,000.00   $  7,500,000.00




</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6212** 

LUCIUS ELWOOD MCLEAN , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v. L. A. OLIGMUELLER, JR. , Detective; DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE; B. J. BARNES; SGT. LINEIR, Defendants

– Appelle es .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Durham
. Thomas David Schroeder , District Judge. ( 1:09

- cv - 00953

- TDS

- LPA )

Submitted : March 16, 2010 Decided: March 24, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, an d DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Lucius Elwood McLean, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Lucius Elwood McLean seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order and recommendation to dismiss McLean’s 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2006) complaint without prejudice. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (200 6 ), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (200 6 ); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 , 545

- 47 (1949). The magistrate judge’s order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Moreover, where a magistrate judge has been designat ed by a district court judge to submit “proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition” of a prisoner petition challenging conditions of confinement under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1)(B) (2006), the parties must be given fourteen days within wh ich to “serve and file written objections,” and the district judge is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2006 and Supp. 1A 2009 ). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts3 and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
pr ocess. DISMISSED
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4998 

To provide that the final rule of the Department of Homeland Security 

entitled ‘‘Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds’’ shall have the full 

force and effect of law, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2023 

Mr. GOOD of Virginia (for himself, Mr. BABIN, Mr. GROTHMAN, Mr. NORMAN, 

Mr. TIFFANY, Mr. LAMALFA, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. DESJARLAIS, Mr. MILLS, 

Mr. EZELL, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mrs. MILLER of Illinois, and Mr. 

OGLES) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide that the final rule of the Department of Homeland Security entitled ‘‘Inadmissibility on Public Charge 

Grounds’’ shall have the full force and effect of law, 

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 ‘‘Preserving Safety Net 

5 Integrity Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4998 IH

1 SEC. 2. LEGAL EFFECT OF FINAL RULE. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The final rule of the Department 

3 of Homeland Security entitled ‘‘Inadmissibility on Public 

4 Charge Grounds’’ (85 Fed. Reg. 41292, August 14, 2019) 

5 shall have the full force and effect of law. 

6 (b) CONFORMING CHANGE.—The final rule of the 

7 Department of Homeland Security entitled ‘‘Public 

8 Charge Ground of Inadmissibility’’ (87 Fed. Reg. 55472, 

9 September 9, 2022) shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
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-2018-0025-4292

Siemens Medical Solutions USA, 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
Order entered July 18, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00902-CV

IN RE BRENDEN F. DETERMANN, Relator

On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 02-05622-R

ORDER

Based on the Court’s opinion of today’s date, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus. We ORDER that relator bear the costs of this original proceeding.

/s/ MICHAEL J. O'NEILL 

JUSTICE
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-11364

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DANIEL VELA, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CR-37-1

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Daniel Vela, Jr., has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Vela has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief 

and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

 

* 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 circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 6, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-11364 Document: 00514586510 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/06/2018
No. 17-11364

2

appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-11364 Document: 00514586510 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/06/2018
PUBLIC VERSION
$[*********] [******]

$[*********]

INPUT

20.0

$[*********]

[******]

[******]

0.05

PUBLIC VERSION
Consistent with USTR's Section 301 notice, OMRON Management Center of America, Inc. requests

confidential treatment for the information designated as business confidential in this submission. Such

information consists of information that would not customarily be released to the public, including

business or trade secrets regarding production costs and processes, data on sales, product characteristics

customers, destinations, and other product, sales, and cost-related business secrets. Business confidential

information has been indicated herein by enclosing it in single brackets (“[ ]”). A public version of these

comments is also being filed with all confidential information removed.

OMRON in the US is the only designer of this product and only supplier of this component.

ACCESSORY SWITCH is a molded plastic switch housing, and is used only for automotive purposes to

house switches of an OEM-specified dimension. It is only used for further assembly of components

which go into domestic automobile production, which is specified by auto manufacturer.

This product is not a target of the US Administration's 301 investigation regarding Intellectual Property

concerns. This is not a concern to IP transfer and impressment. This product contains no IP of interest

related to autonomous vehicle production.

The tariff action ultimately poses a risk of significant damage to OMRON, the domestic automobile

industry, and ultimately the US consumer as a increase in price. Like in the case of similar approvals for

vehicle components at the HTS level, OMRON views this product in the same manner. Immediate

movement of production to a US manufacturer or another country would pose significant re-tooling

costs, significant amounts of time, and approvals pertaining to consumer automobile safety standards are

costly and would take a significant amount of time to obtain.

OMRON Management Center of America, Inc. believes that CBP can easily exclude the ACCESSORY

SWITCH in question based solely on the product description. The following are draft CBP exclusion

instructions:

"ACCESSORY SWITCH square base with rounded corners;Base for ACCESSORY SWITCH - Made

of plastic resin - PBT GF30 BLK; dimensions 39.00mm X 33.3mm X 27.80mm."

This information will be contained on the invoice from the supplier

PUBLIC VERSION
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
RULE 13a-14(a) OR 15d-14(a)
  1.
    
    I have reviewed and read this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Kolorfusion International,
Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this Quarterly Report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light
of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this Quarterly Report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included in
this Quarterly Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in
this Quarterly Report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in the Exchange Act Rules 13a-14
and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervisions, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this Quarterly Report is being prepared;(b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this Quarterly Report based on such
evaluation; and(c)
    
    disclosed in this Quarterly Report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and
board of directors performing the equivalent functions of an audit committee:
 (a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting; and
 Date: February 14, 2007
    By:
    /s/ Stephen NagelPresident and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 4, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 530-531]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service


Renegotiation Board Interest Rate, Prompt Payment Interest Rate, 
and Contracts Disputes Act

    Although the Renegotiation Board is no longer in existence, other 
Federal Agencies are required to use interest rates computed under the 
criteria established by the Renegotiation Act of 1971 (P.L. 92-41). For 
example, the Contracts Disputes Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-563) and the 
Prompt Payment Act (P.L. 97-177) are required to calculate interest due 
on claims at a rate established by the Secretary of the Treasury 
pursuant to Public Law 92-41 (85 Stat. 97) for the Renegotiation Board 
(31 U.S.C. 3902).
    Therefore, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the above 
mentioned sections, the Secretary of the Treasury has determined that 
the rate of interest applicable for the purpose of said 
[[Page 531]] sections, for the period beginning January 1, 1995 and 
ending on June 30, 1995, is 8\1/8\% per centum per annum.

    Dated: December 27, 1994.
Marcus Page,
Acting Fiscal Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-8 Filed 1-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 52 (Friday, March 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 14470]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6796]



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


NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Licensing Support System Advisory Review Panel

ACTION: Change in meeting location.

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

SUMMARY: This is to announce a change in location of the next meeting 
of the Licensing Support System Advisory Review Panel (LSSARP). The 
meeting will be held in Las Vegas, Nevada, on March 22 and 23, 1995, as 
previously announced in the Federal Register on March 3, 1995 (60 FR 
11998). The location of the meeting has been moved to a facility on the 
campus of the University of Nevada at Las Vegas (UNLV). The Panel will 
be using the Student Lounge, Room A-207, in the Thomas Beam Engineering 
Building. The building may be reached from the Claymont Road entrance 
to the campus.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
John C. Hoyle, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555: telephone 301-415-1969.


    Dated at Washington, DC this 15th day of March, 1995.
Andrew L. Bates,
Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-6796 Filed 3-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4366

Aisin World Corp. of America:

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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-28-1998
<CASH>                                          10,050
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,053
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,734
<INVENTORY>                                     35,337
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                85,048
<PP&E>                                          91,968
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,281
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 156,355
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           63,703
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           24,021
<PREFERRED>                                          5
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                   (111,157)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   156,355
<SALES>                                        234,246
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               234,246
<CGS>                                          210,781
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  210,781
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,786
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,088
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (409)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,015
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,424)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before 

GASTON, ATTANASIO, and HOUTZ

Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Damon E. MCCALLUM

Electrician’s Mate Nuclear Fireman (E-3), U.S. Navy

Appellant

No. 202100181

Decided: 22 October 2021

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary 

Military Judge: 

Donald R. Ostrom

Sentence adjudged 10 March 2021 by a special court-martial convened 

at Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia, consisting of a military judge 

sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: confinement for 90

days and a bad-conduct discharge.

For Appellant: 

Commander Kyle C. Kneese, JAGC, USN

For Appellee:

Brian K. Keller, Esq.
United States v. McCallum, NMCCA No. 202100181

Opinion of the Court

2

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under 

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).

_________________________

PER CURIAM:

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law 

and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial 

rights occurred.1

The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court

 

1 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.