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 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2681

Price Pump 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 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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mon Lee, Also Known as Mon Chiu Li, Respondent. New York City Department of Probation, Appellant.

Appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered on or about August 24, 1989 and on or about September 1, 1989, respectively, unanimously dismissed, subject to reinstatement in the event that defendant is permitted to withdraw his plea of guilty. No opinion. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Milonas, Smith and Rubin, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 57 (Friday, March 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15564]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7357]



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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5177-4]


Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces the Office of Management 
and Budget's (OMB) responses to Agency PRA clearance requests.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandy Farmer (202) 260-2740, please 
refer to the EPA ICR No.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Responses to Agency PRA Clearance Requests

OMB Approvals

    EPA ICR No. 0820.06; Hazardous Waste Generator Standards; was 
approved 02/23/95; OMB No. 2050-0035; expires 02/28/98.
    EPA ICR No. 1487.05; Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State 
Contracts for Superfund Response Actions; was approved 02/03/95; OMB 
No. 2010-0020; expires 02/28/98.
    EPA ICR No. 1391.03; Information Request for State Revolving Fund 
Program; was approved 02/24/95; OMB No. 2040-0118; expires 02/28/98.

OMB Disapprovals

    EPA ICR No. 1667.01; Public Information and Confidentiality 
Regulations; was disapproved 02/17/95.
    EPA ICR No. 1693.01; Plant-Pesticides Subject to the Federal 
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; was disapproved 01/24/95.

    Dated: March 17, 1995.
Paul Lapsley,
Director, Regulatory Management Division.
[FR Doc. 95-7357 Filed 3-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                                    5
<MULTIPLIER>                                              1,000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                            3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  SEP-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                       DEC-02-1999
<CASH>                                                       0
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           43,067
<ALLOWANCES>                                               214
<INVENTORY>                                             51,558
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        95,207
<PP&E>                                                 110,015
<DEPRECIATION>                                          47,266
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         164,783
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   57,698
<BONDS>                                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   30,229
<PREFERRED>                                                  5
<COMMON>                                                     5
<OTHER-SE>                                           (136,713)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           164,703
<SALES>                                                100,016
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       100,016
<CGS>                                                   93,912
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           93,912
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         5,335
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       5,335
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (5,064)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (5,064)
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (5,064)
<EPS-BASIC>                                             (1.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           (1.20)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3


              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the use in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 
333-18029) and Form S-3 (No. 333-20825) of our report, dated February 28, 1996, 
relating to the consolidated financial statements of Synagro Technologies, Inc. 
and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 1995. We also consent to the 
reference to our Firm under the captions "Experts."


SINGER LEWAK GREENBAUM & GOLDSTEIN LLP

Los Angeles, California
April 15, 1999
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-2018-0025-2177

Signode Industrial Group LLC:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20. 

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

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

request was denied because the request 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
#### STATE v. EULA CAGLE.

(Filed 18 March, 1942.)

Criminal Law § 63—

Defendant’s plea of guilty of violating the prohibition laws is sufficient to support the court’s finding that she had violated the terms of a suspended sentence theretofore entered for a prior similar offense, and the court may order the suspended sentence into effect upon motion of the solicitor made at any time during the period of probation.

Appeal from *Nettles, J.,*at October Term, 1941, of HeNDeesoN.

The record on appeal shows (1) that defendant having pleaded “guilty to the crime of violation of prohibition law and possession of liquor for sale,” Armstrong, Judge presiding at March Term, 1940, of Henderson County Superior Court, suspended a jail sentence imposed upon her therefor, and placed her on probation for a period of three years upon specified conditions, including these, that she “avoid persons and places of disreputable or harmful character” and that she “violate no State or Federal penal laws”; (2) that at October Term, 1940, of said court defendant pleaded guilty to violating the prohibition laws, and was sentenced by Bobbitt, Judge presiding, to a term in jail; and (3) that at October Term, 1941, upon motion, Nettles, Judge presiding, finding as facts that defendant had violated the “terms and provisions” of the “suspended sentence imposed at March Term, 1940,” among others those named above, ordered the jail sentence into full force and effect and, in accordance therewith, ordered commitment of defendant.

Defendant appeals therefrom to Supreme Court and assigns error.

*Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton and Patton for the State.*

*A. A. Bice and Arthur J. Redden for defendant.*

Peb Cubiam.

The findings of fact, upon which the judgment from which appeal is taken is founded, are supported by sufficient evidence and are sufficient to support the judgment. See *S. v. Hardin,*183 N. C., 815, 112 S. E., 593.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit10.23****Framework Agreement**Pursuant to this Framework Agreement (the “Agreement”), effective as of November 8th,2007 Hunchun BaoLi Communications Co. Ltd., a Chinese enterprise (“BaoLi Communications”), andSuperconductor Technologies Inc., a Delaware corporation (“STI”), agree as follows:**1. Organization of HBST.**BaoLi Communications and STI (or such subsidiaries of STI as STI maydesignate) agree to establish the Hunchun BaoLi Superconductor Technology Co Ltd. (“HBST”) pursuantto the Sino-Foreign Equity Joint Venture Contact attached as Exhibit A and HBST and STI shall enterinto a License Agreement in the form attached as Exhibit B (in each case, with any changes on whichthe parties mutually agree). STI may substitute its designated subsidiary or subsidiaries asparties to such Joint Venture Contract. BaoLi Communications will provide additional workingcapital to HBST as reasonable needed, without any dilution to the equity of STI without its consentand with the goal of minimizing any effect on HBST or the ownership interest of STI.**2. Confidentiality.**The parties each agree to comply with the relevant provisions of Exhibits Aand B concerning the confidentiality of all information concerning HBST and the licensedtechnology. Any news releases related to this Agreement and the proposed formation of HBST issubject to the review and approval of both STI and BaoLi Communications, not to be unreasonablywithheld or delayed, and subject to the requirement that each party comply with applicable law andregulations of any stock exchange.**3. Governing law.**This Agreement shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State ofCalifornia, except for the conflict of laws provisions thereof and without reference to the ViennaConvention on the International Sale of Goods. Any disputes concerning this Agreement will bearbitrated according to the arbitration provisions of the Trademark License.**4. Termination.**This Agreement will terminate if the parties have not completed the formationHBST on or before January 31, 2008 and the parties will thereafter have no further obligationsunder this Agreement.In witness whereof, having ready, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions of thisFramework Agreement, and with full authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the respectiveParties, the undersigned hereby execute this Agreement as of the date first above written.       **Superconductor Technologies Inc., a Delaware** **Hunchan BaoLi Communications Co.****Corporation** **Ltd. a Chinese company**       By: /s/ Jeffery Quiram By: /s/ (Signature)         Name: Jeffery Quiram   Name:  Title: President &  CEO   Title:
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4029

Alo 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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 57 (Friday, March 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7221]



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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service


Agenda For the April 6, 1995 Meeting of the Advisory Commission 
For the San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park Public Meeting 
Fort Mason, Building F (Firehouse) 7:00 pm--10:00 pm

7:00 PM Welcome--Neil Chaitin, Chairman
    Opening Remarks--Neil Chaitin, Chairman, William Thomas, 
Superintendent
    Old Business
    Approval of Minutes
7:15 PM--Orientation to Park Departments
    Education, John Cunnane, Supervisory Park Ranger
      Revell Carr, Interpretive Specialist
      Nancy Martling, Director, Environmental Living Program
    Exhibits, Richard Everett, Curator of Exhibits
7:45 PM--Update--Museum Accreditation San Francisco Maritime National 
Historical Park
    Marc Hayman--Chief, Interpretation and Resource Management
7:55 PM--Update--General Management Plan
    William G. Thomas, Superintendent
8:10 PM--Advisory Commission Committee Reports Committee Chairmen
8:30 PM--BREAK
8:45 PM--Discussion--Proposal to construct a multi-use building on the 
Hyde Street Pier
    Michael Bell, Project Manager
9:05 PM--Public question and comments
9:45 PM--Agenda Items/Date for next meeting
10:00 PM--Adjournment

    Dated: March 10, 1995.
Patricia L. Newbacher,
Regional Director, Western Region.
[FR Doc. 95-7221 Filed 3-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
PUBLIC VERSION Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
$[*********] [******]

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

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.

ACTUATOR POWER SEAT SWITCH is a molded plastic switch component, and is used only for

automotive purposes of raising and lowering seats, of which is 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 ACTUATOR

POWER SEAT SWITCH in question based solely on the product description. The following are draft

CBP exclusion instructions:

"ACTUATOR POWER SEAT SWITCH square base with a cylindrical actuator protruding from the

center of the base perpendicular to the base's plane - Made of resin - POM BLK Interface/link between

knob and switch cell." Dimensions 11.1mm x15.0mm x22.2mm."

This information will be contained on the invoice from the supplier.

PUBLIC VERSION
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-50444

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ARTURO QUEZADA SAENZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. P-98-CR-14-2

- - - - - - - - - -

February 1, 1999

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Arturo Saenz appeals his conviction of possession with

intent to distribute marijuana. He argues that the evidence was

insufficient to support the verdict that he possessed the

marijuana and that the evidence showed only that he was a

passenger in a van in which the marijuana was contained. He also

argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying

his motion to suppress photographs taken from a camera found in a

duffle bag located in the van. 
No. 98-50444

-2-

The evidence at trial was sufficient to establish that Saenz

had control over or the power to control the marijuana in the

van. See United States v. Quiroz-Hernandez, 48 F.3d 858, 865

(5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Broussard, 80 F.3d 1025, 1030-

31 (5th Cir. 1996).

Our review of the record reveals that the probative value of

the photographs was not substantially outweighed by their

prejudicial effect. The district court did not abuse its

discretion in admitting the photographs into evidence. See

United States v. Pace, 10 F.3d 1106, 1115-16 (5th Cir. 1993). 

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 99.2

                  Certification of Principal Financial Officer
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, Edward Lieberman, Chief Financial Officer of Phoenix Color Corp. (the
"Registrant"), certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 of the
Registrant ("the Report"):

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of
            the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


/s/ Edward Lieberman
------------------------------
Edward Lieberman
May 13, 2003
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-2018-0025-4105

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