alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE v. JADDIE (JERRY) DALLAS.

(Filed 14 December, 1960.)

Homicide § 38—

An instruction which, in effect, limits a verdict of not guilty to a finding by the jury that defendant killed deceased in self-defense must be held for prejudicial error, since defendant’s plea of not guilty places the burden upon the State of satisfying the jury beyond a reasonable doubt of each and every essential element of the offense.

Appeal by defendant from *Williams, J.,*March 1960 Criminal Term, of CUMBERLAND.

This is a criminal action. Defendant is charged in the bill of indictment with the murder of one Bobby Pate. The State elected not to prosecute defendant for the capital offense of murder in the first degree.

The evidence tends to show: Defendant was working at a drive-in cafe. Pate and companions entered the cafe and became boisterous and offensive. Defendant asked them to leave. They were armed with knives and advanced toward defendant. Defendant got a pistol and fired twice “over their heads.” He fired additional shots. Pate was struck by a bullet. He was carried to a hospital and died as a result of the bullet wound. The evidence was conflicting as to whether Pate was facing defendant at the time he was shot or was in the act of leaving.

*569Plea: not guilty. Verdict: guilty of manslaughter. Judgment: prison ■sentence of 7 to 10 years.

Defendant appealed and assigned errors.

*Attorney General Bruton and Assistant Attorney General McGal-■liard for the State.*

*Nance, Barrington & Collier and Rudolph G. Singleton, Jr., for ■defendant.*

Per CuRiam.

Defendant denied that he intentionally shot deceased. The court charged the jury: “. . . (Y)ou may return one of three verdicts: a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree, a verdict ■of guilty of manslaughter, or a verdict of not guilty on the grounds >of self-defense.” The charge as a whole limits the authority of the jury to return a verdict of not guilty to a finding of “not guilty by reason of self-defense.” At no time was the jury instructed that, if upon a fair and impartial consideration of the evidence they had a reasonable doubt of defendant’s guilt, it would be their duty to acquit him. In effect the court instructed the jury that defendant was not entitled to an acquittal unless he satisfied the jury that he had acted in self-defense. Defendant’s plea of not guilty cast upon the State the burden of satisfying the jury from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of each and every essential element of the offense. In limiting the possibility of acquittal to a showing of self-defense the court erred. *State v. Baker,*222 N.C. 428, 28 S.E. 2d 340; *State v. Howell,*218 N.C. 280, 10 S.E. 2d 815.

New trial.
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-2018-0025-5035

Scosche Industries, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request 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
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5095 

To freeze hiring activity for the Department of Education, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 1, 2023 

Mr. BEAN of Florida (for himself, Mrs. MILLER of Illinois, and Mr. MORAN) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on Appropriations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To freeze hiring activity for the Department of Education, 

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 ‘‘Fostering Resource 

5 Efficiency in Education by Zero Employment Act’’ or the 

6 ‘‘FREEZE Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5095 IH

1 SEC. 2. HIRING FREEZE AND OTHER LIMITATIONS. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Beginning on the date of the en3 actment of this Act— 

4 (1) no individual may be appointed to any posi5 tion within the Department of Education; and 

6 (2) no new position may be established at the 

7 Department of Education. 

8 (b) RESCISSION OF EXCESS SUMS.—There is perma9 nently rescinded, from the unobligated balance of all 

10 amounts appropriated or otherwise made available for the 

11 salaries and expenses of the Department of Education as 

12 of the date of the enactment of this Act, such sums as 

13 may be in excess of the amount required to cover the sal14 ary or expenses of each person employed by the Depart15 ment as of such date of enactment. 

16 (c) LIMITATION ON THE USE OF FUNDS.—No Fed17 eral funds may be obligated or expended for the salary 

18 of any position or employee in violation of subsection (a). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
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-2018-0025-4730

Horizon Hobby 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

_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

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4912

Arrowhead Electrical Products, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5242

Arrowhead Electrical Products, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk October 26, 2012

p1023 

# Order

October 26, 2012

145105

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145105

COA: 302583

Hillsdale CC: 10

- 342193

- FH

RITA RENEE CRABTREE,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 20, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, in lieu of granting leave to appeal,

we REVERSE that part of the Court of Appeals judgment addressing the assessment of

points for offense variable (OV) 1, MCL 777.31, and OV 2, MCL 777.32, we VACATE

the sentence of the Hillsdale Circuit Court, and we REMAND this case to the trial court

for resentencing in light of the Court of Appeals decision in People v Ball , ___ Mich App

___ (COA 303727, decided June 19, 2012), lv den ___ Mich ___ (SC 145668, October

26, 2012). In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Lonnie SNELLING, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. LAND CLEARANCE FOR REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF the CITY OF ST. LOUIS and St. Louis Housing Authority, Respondents.

No. 65007.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

June 21, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Aug. 4, 1994.

Application to Transfer Denied Sept. 20, 1994.

Lonnie Snelling, pro se.

Deanne M. Maeer and Mildred Motley, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before GARY M. GAERTNER, C.J., and PUDLOWSKI and SIMON, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Lonnie Snelling, appeals from an order of summary judgment entered in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis on his claim of actionable nuisance against respondents, Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority of the City of St. Louis and St. Louis Housing Authority. We affirm. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the findings and conclusions of the circuit court are not clearly erroneous. As we further find an extended opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm the circuit court’s order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Organization Name:

Note: Representatives submitting on behalf of an organization must enter information below.

Requestor Representative:

Section 301 Investigation: China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology 

Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation - Form to Request Exclusion of Product

When submitting a product exclusion request using this form, enter the specified 

information in the following fields and explain the basis and rationale for your statements. 

By completing this form, you certify that the information provided is complete and 

correct to the best of your knowledge. 

1. Indicate whether the comment contains business confidential information (BCI), is a public

document, or is a public version of a BCI document.

3.

2. Please provide a complete and detailed description of the product of concern:

4.

5. Requestor's relationship to the product:

CONTINUED BELOW

*

10-digit HTSUS item number* for product you wish to address in this product exclusion request:

Use numerical characters only with no special characters (example: 1023456789). For help in finding 

the HTSUS item number associated with your product, see https://hts.usitc.gov/

1

7.

6. Does this submission in regulations.gov include additional attachments?

Please indicate whether any additional attachment contains business confidential

information (BCI), is a public document, or is a public version of a BCI document.

VERSION 1

Requestor Information

Requestor Name (Last, First):

Public Version of BCI

RSM300, 32.4 ton Capacity, .63 in Stroke, Low Height Hydraulic Cylinder; Maximum Operating 

Pressure psi: 10000; Weight Kgs: 4,5; Oil Capacity Advance cm3: 55; Stroke Ranges mm: 0 - 23

8412210075 Schmidt, Jackie Enerpac Jackie SchmidtImporter Yes Contains BCI
END 2

8. Is this product, or a comparable product, available from sources in the United States?:

VERSION 1

11. Please provide information in support your request, taking account of the instructions

provided in Section B of the Federal Register notice (note: text entered below can extend

beyond the apparent size of this box).

9. Is this product, or a comparable product, available from sources in third countries?:

10. Please provide the value and quantity (with units) of the Chinese-origin product of concern

that you purchased for each calendar year specified. Limit this figure to the products

purchased by your firm (or by members of your trade association) alone. Please provide 

estimates if precise figures are unavailable.

2016 Value:

2015 Value:

2017 Value:

2016 Quantity:

2015 Quantity:

2017 Quantity:

No No BCI BCI BCI BCI BCI BCI

See addendum for additional information.
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.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4315 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4315

To address the foreign production of precursor chemicals that are used 
  for the illicit production of narcotics and psychotropic drugs and 
          other controlled substances, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 26, 2022

 Mr. Cornyn (for himself, Mr. Cardin, and Mr. Hagerty) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                           Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To address the foreign production of precursor chemicals that are used 
  for the illicit production of narcotics and psychotropic drugs and 
          other controlled substances, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting America from Narcotics 
and Illicit Chemicals Act of 2022'' or the ``PANIC Act of 2022''.

SEC. 2. MODIFIED DEFINITION OF MAJOR ILLICIT DRUG PRODUCING COUNTRY.

    Section 481(e)(2) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
2291(e)(2)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``; or'' and inserting 
        a semicolon;
            (2) in subparagraph (D), by inserting ``or'' after the 
        semicolon; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(E) that is a direct source of covered synthetic 
                drugs or psychotropic drugs or other controlled 
                substances, including precursor chemicals, when those 
                precursor chemicals are used in the production of such 
                drugs and substances, significantly affecting the 
                United States;''.
                                 <all>
```
#### John PLUMLEE, Appellant, v. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY, Respondent.

No. WD 49895.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 22, 1995.

Patrick J. Hagerty, St. Louis, for appellant.

Douglas R. Dalgleish, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before FENNER, C.J., P.J., and KENNEDY and LAURA DENVIR STITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from judgment after jury trial in favor of Kansas City Southern Railway in action under Federal Employer’s Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. § 51*et seq.*

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4683

II-VI Incorporated:

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
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### October 17, 2017 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. BRETT W. ELLIS, Defendant - Appellant. No. 17-3037 (D.C. Nos. 2:14-CV-02578-KHV and 2:12-CR-20093-KHV-DJW-1) (D. Kan.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

Before PHILLIPS , McKAY , and McHUGH , Circuit Judges. Appellant seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas petition. Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence found in a search of his residence and computers, Appellant pled guilty to possession of child pornography and was sentenced pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement to a below-guidelines sentence of seventy-two months. In his § 2255 petition, he raised several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, all relating to the

* This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.unsuccessful motion to suppress. The district court denied Appellant’s § 2255 petition in a comprehensive twenty-three page order, in which the court analyzed each of Appellant’s claims and explained why each claim failed to show constitutionally ineffective advocacy and/or prejudice under the Supreme Court’s governing Strickland standard. See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687, 694 (1984). After thoroughly reviewing Appellant’s brief and the record on appeal, we conclude that reasonable jurists would not debate the correctness of the district court’s ruling. See Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). For substantially the same reasons given by the district court, we DENYAppellant’s request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge

-2-
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Patrick J.Dirk, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report TroyGroup, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended February 28, 2003 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents inall material respects the financial condition and results of operations of TroyGroup, Inc.
|   | By:    | /s/ Patrick J. Dirk                   |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   | Name:  | Patrick J. Dirk                       |
|   | Title: | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   |                                  |

 

----