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

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4645

SPM Flow Control, Inc. DBA Weir SPM:

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
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 annual report of Western Silver Corporation (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officers knowledge:



(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 results
of

operations of the Company as of
the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.





Date:  February 15, 2004/s/  F. Dale CormanName:Title:Chief Executive Officer/s/  R. Joseph LitnoskyName:Title:Chief Financial Officer






The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

{00029274.DOC;1}
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-4101

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

KEVIN LYNDELL DAVIS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(4:07-cr-01177-RBH-1) 

Submitted: July 21, 2009 Decided: August 25, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender, 

Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker 

Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Kevin Lyndell 

Davis pled guilty to Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) 

(2006). The plea agreement specified that a six-year sentence 

was appropriate; this provision was binding upon the district 

court upon acceptance of the plea agreement. See Fed. R. Crim. 

P. 11(c)(1)(C). Davis accordingly was sentenced to six years in 

prison. He now appeals. His attorney has filed a brief 

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

questioning whether Davis’ guilty plea was valid and his 

sentence reasonable, but stating that there are no grounds for 

appeal. Davis was notified of his right to file a pro se 

supplemental brief but has not filed such a brief. We affirm. 

 Our review of the transcript of the plea colloquy 

discloses full compliance with Rule 11. Furthermore, the record 

reveals that Davis entered his plea voluntarily and knowingly 

and that there was a factual basis for the plea. Finally, we 

conclude that the six-year sentence is reasonable. 

 We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with 

Anders and have not identified any meritorious issues for 

appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. This court requires counsel to 

inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the 

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the 

client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes 

2 
3 

that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in 

this court to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion 

must state that a copy of the motion was served on the client. 

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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          93,219
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,143
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     20,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               226,487
<PP&E>                                       1,053,116
<DEPRECIATION>                                (340,303)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,848,568
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          976,860
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          2
<COMMON>                                         5,905
<OTHER-SE>                                         509
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,848,568
<SALES>                                      5,748,936
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,748,936
<CGS>                                        2,313,975
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,180,707
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (9,884)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,801
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (421,887)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (421,887)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (421,887)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Benny Villalona, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lagaña, J.), rendered April 16, 1985, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We disagree with defendant’s contention that the circumstantial evidence adduced in this case was insufficient as a matter of law to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It is a "well-settled standard of proof in circumstantial evidence cases * * * that the facts from which the inference of defendant’s guilt is drawn must be inconsistent with the defendant’s innocence and must exclude to a moral certainty every other reasonable hypothesis” *(People v Giuliano,*65 NY2d 766, 767-768; *see also, People v Sanchez,*61 NY2d 1022, 1024; *People v Way,*59 NY2d 361). In this case, at about 11:30 p.m. on July 28, 1982, a witness observed an unknown man and woman and the deceased, Jose Baez, whom she knew, arguing loudly in Spanish about an alleged $30 debt owed by the unknown man to the deceased. The deceased walked away, and the other man told the woman that he was going to "drop” the deceased. The man then got into an orange sports car and, beckoning Baez over to the car, shot and killed him. He then drove the orange car away.

Two police officers on patrol in the vicinity heard the gunshot and, while approaching the area from which the sound came, met an orange car driven by the defendant without its headlights on. They stopped the car, spoke to the defendant, whom they identified, and, after he turned on the headlights, allowed him to proceed. Seconds afterwards, they drove down the street and saw the deceased’s body. There were no other people or cars on the street. Approximately half an hour later, the orange car was discovered abandoned nearby, with its windows open. The car, which was owned by the defendant’s girlfriend, was primarily driven by the defendant, and his fingerprints, as well as traces of the deceased’s *566blood, were found on the outside of the car. Nearly two years later, defendant was arrested in Norfolk, Virginia. The defendant’s alibi witnesses were not persuasive. We find, on review of the record, that this evidence excluded to a moral certainty every hypothesis other than guilt *(see, People v Giuliano, supra).*

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 43 (Monday, March 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 12195]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5482]



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

APPALACHIAN STATES LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE COMMISSION


Special Meeting

AGENCY: Appalachian States Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission.

ACTION: Open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Appalachian States Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission 
will hold an executive session and a public meeting on March 20, 1995. 
The executive session is closed to the public.

DATES: March 20, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Radisson Penn Harris Hotel & Convention Center 1150 Camp 
Hill Bypass in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marc S. Tenan, Executive Director 207 State Street, Harrisburg, PA 
17101, 717-234-6295.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Appalachian States Low-Level Radioactive 
Waste Commission (Commission) was established by the Appalachian States 
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact Consent Act (Pub. L. 100-319, May 
19, 1988). The Commission represents the states of Delaware, Maryland, 
West Virginia, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to assist in the 
establishment of a regional low-level radioactive waste disposal 
facility as required by the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy 
Amendments Act (Pub. L. 99-240, January 15, 1986).
    The primary purpose of the public meeting is to consider a $1.5 
million grant request from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 
Resources. A summary of the executive session will also be presented.
    The notice of this special meeting may not be printed with 14 days 
notice as required by Public Law 100-319 and the Administrative 
Procedure Act because of the urgency of the agenda.
Marc S. Tenan,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 95-5482 Filed 3-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 0000-00-M
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-2018-0025-2287

WTEC Texas, 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,

Stephen P. Vaughn
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-2018-0025-3199

General Bearing Corp:

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

General Counsel
Exhibit 31.2 SECTION 302
CERTIFICATION I, Edward Lieberman, certify that: 1.
I
have reviewed this Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 of Phoenix
Color Corp.;  2.
Based
on my knowledge, this 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 report;  3.
Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;  4.
The
registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  (a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this 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 report based on such
evaluation; and  (c)
Disclosed in this 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 the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):  (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 control over financial reporting  Date: August 8, 2005 /s/ Edward
      Lieberman
      
      
                       Edward
      Lieberman
                       Chief
      Financial Officer
                       and
      Chief Accounting Officer  1
Exhibit 10.35
  
 FIRST AMENDMENT OF Purchase and Sale CONTRACT
  
 THIS FIRST AMENDMENT OF PURCHASE AND SALE CONTRACT(this “Amendment”) is entered into effective as of the 27th day of June, 2011 (“Effective Date”), by and betweenNATIONAL PROPERTY INVESTORS 5, a California limited partnership, having an address at c/o AIMCO, 4582 South Ulster Street Parkway, Suite 1100, Denver, Colorado 80237 (“Seller”), and BHE ACQUISITIONS, L.L.C., an Iowa limited liability company, having a principal address at 400 Locust Street, Suite 790, Des Moines, Iowa 50309 (“Purchaser”).
 RECITALS
 A.        Seller and Purchaser entered into that certain Purchase and Sale Contract, dated as of May 26, 2011 (the “Contract”), regarding real property located in Altamonte Springs, Florida and more particularly described in the Contract.
 B.         Seller and Purchaser desire to amend the Contract subject to the terms and conditions described below.
 C.        All capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Contract.
 NOW THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, and intending to be legally bound, Seller and Purchaser agree as follows:
 agreements
 1.                  Incorporation of Recitals.  The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.
 2.                  Extension of Feasibility Period.  Anything contained in Section 3.1 of the Contract to the contrary notwithstanding, the Feasibility Period shall expire on June 30, 2011.
 3.                  No Further Modification.  Except as modified by this Amendment, the Contract remains unmodified.  The terms and provisions of the Contract as amended by this Amendment remain in full force and effect and are hereby ratified and confirmed.
 4.                  Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, and all such counterparts together shall be construed as one document.
 5.                  Telecopied/Electronic Mail Signatures.  A counterpart of this Amendment signed by one party to this Amendment and telecopied or sent by electronic mail to another party to this Amendment or its counsel (i) shall have the same effect as an original signed counterpart of this Amendment, and (ii) shall be conclusive proof, admissible in judicial proceedings, of such party’s execution of this Amendment.
  [Remainder of page intentionally left blank; signatures to follow]
  
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Seller and Purchaser have entered into this First Amendment as of the date first above stated.
  
 SELLER:
  
 NATIONAL PROPERTY INVESTORS 5,
       a California limited partnership
  
       By: NPI EQUITY INVESTMENTS, INC.,
              a Florida corporation,
              its general partner
  
  
  
 By: /s/Trent A. Johnson
 Name:  Trent A. Johnson
 Title:  Vice President
  

 PURCHASER:
  
 BHE ACQUISITIONS, L.L.C.,
 an Iowa limited liability company
  
 By:  /s/Nicholas H. Roby
 Name:  Nicholas H. Roby
 Title:  Vice President
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

SAFE 'N' SEC CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA 

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

SNS HOLDING LLC, A RUSSIAN FEDERATION 

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, SBERBANK OF 

RUSSIA OJSC, AN OPEN JOINT STOCK COMPANY

OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________

2019-1231

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Central District of California in No. 2:17-cv-06940-RGKAGR, Judge R. Gary Klausner.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

CHRISTINE R. ESSIQUE, Ellias and Elias PC, West 

Bloomfield, MI, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by FREDERICK D. ELIAS. 

 LAUREN GALLO WHITE, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & 

Rosati, PC, San Francisco, CA, argued for defendant-
appellee SNS Holding LLC. Also represented by DYLAN 

JAMES LIDDIARD, ANTHONY J. WEIBELL, Palo Alto, CA; 

ALINA LEONIDOVNA LITOSHYK, San Diego, CA. 

 ROBERT RHOAD, Dechert, LLP, Princeton, NJ, argued 

for defendant-appellee Sberbank of Russia OJSC. Also represented by CHRISTOPHER S. RUHLAND, Los Angeles, CA; 

KELLY KRELLNER, LUKE REILLY, Philadelphia, PA. 

 ______________________

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (REYNA, TARANTO, and STOLL, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 October 7, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court