alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<page>

Exhibit 32

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Each of the undersigned of Sovran Acquisition Limited Partnership (the "Operating Partnership") does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



|1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Operating Partnership for the period ended March 31, 2007 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
|2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Operating Partnership.                                                                 

Dated:          May 8, 2007



| | / S / Robert J. Attea                          Robert J. AtteaChairman of the Board
Chief Executive Officer of Sovran Holdings, Inc., the Sole General Partner of the Operating Partnership
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | / S / David L. Rogers                        David L. Rogers
Chief Financial Officer of Sovran Holdings, Inc., the Sole General Partner of the Operating Partnership                       



























- 1 -
3XEOLF9HUVLRQRI%&,

3803,03(//(5&$67,1*35(6685(&217$,1,1*67$,1/(6667((/



3,$==$52%(57

35,&(3803&203$1<

2WKHU

12

3XEOLF9HUVLRQRI%&,
 .*

<(6

12

 .*

 .*

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

385&+$6,1*5$:0$7(5,$/$1'0$&+,1,1*,7'20(67,&$//<&267
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-2018-0025-4447

OMRON Management Center of America, 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 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
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5112 

To direct the Secretary of Defense to establish procedures for the review 

and reinvestigation of certain allegations of civilian harm that resulted 

from United States military operations, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 1, 2023 

Ms. JACOBS (for herself, Mr. KHANNA, Mr. CROW, and Mr. KIM of New Jersey) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Defense to establish procedures 

for the review and reinvestigation of certain allegations 

of civilian harm that resulted from United States military operations, 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 ‘‘Civilian Harm Review 

5 and Reassessment Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5112 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW AND REINVESTIGATION 

2 OF ALLEGATIONS OF CIVILIAN HARM RE3 SULTING FROM CERTAIN UNITED STATES 

4 MILITARY OPERATIONS. 

5 (a) PROCEDURES REQUIRED.—Not later than 180 

6 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Sec7 retary of Defense shall establish procedures under which 

8 the Secretary shall review and reinvestigate allegations of 

9 civilian harm that— 

10 (1) resulted from military operations involving 

11 the United States Armed Forces that were con12 ducted between 2011 and 2023; and 

13 (2) the Secretary finds were likely incorrectly 

14 dismissed due to investigation errors or incomplete 

15 information. 

16 (b) CONSULTATION.—In establishing the procedures 

17 under subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense shall con18 sult with nongovernmental organizations that focus on ci19 vilian harm and human rights. 

20 (c) POLICY UPDATES.—Not later than one year after 

21 the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 

22 Defense shall submit to the congressional defense commit23 tees a report that includes— 

24 (1) a description of any errors identified during 

25 the review and re-investigation process required 

26 under subsection (a); 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 5112 IH

1 (2) an identification of any revised credibility 

2 assessments and new credibility findings; 

3 (3) a description of steps taken in response to 

4 new credibility findings, including any offers of ex 

5 gratia payments; and 

6 (4) recommended steps to prevent similar errors 

7 in the future. 

8 (d) CONGRESSIONAL DEFENSE COMMITTEES.—In 

9 this section, the term ‘‘congressional defense committees’’ 

10 means— 

11 (1) the Committee on Armed Services and the 

12 Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and 

13 (2) the Committee on Armed Services and the 

14 Committee on Appropriations of the House of Rep15 resentatives. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5179 

To require the maintenance of the country of origin markings for imported 

goods produced in the West Bank or Gaza, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 8, 2023 

Ms. TENNEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To require the maintenance of the country of origin markings 

for imported goods produced in the West Bank or Gaza, 

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 ‘‘Anti-BDS Labeling 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CONTINUATION IN EFFECT OF COUNTRY OF ORIGIN 

7 MARKING POLICY FOR IMPORTED GOODS 

8 PRODUCED IN THE WEST BANK OR GAZA. 

9 The policy of the Government of the United States 

10 with respect to country of origin marking of imported 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5179 IH

1 goods produced in the West Bank or Gaza, notice of which 

2 was published by U.S. Customs and Border Protection in 

3 the Federal Register on December 23, 2020 (85 Fed. Reg. 

4 83984), shall remain in effect until repealed by an Act 

5 of Congress. 

6 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO RESCIND OR 

7 CHANGE THE COUNTRY OF ORIGIN MARKING 

8 POLICY FOR IMPORTED GOODS PRODUCED 

9 IN THE WEST BANK OR GAZA. 

10 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of 

11 the funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made 

12 available for the Department of State or U.S. Customs 

13 and Border Protection on or after the date of the enact14 ment of this Act may be obligated or expended to prepare 

15 or promulgate any policy, guidance, regulation, notice, or 

16 Executive order or to otherwise implement, administer, or 

17 enforce any policy that rescinds or changes the policy of 

18 the Government of the United States with respect to coun19 try of origin marking of imported goods produced in the 

20 West Bank or Gaza, notice of which was published by U.S. 

21 Customs and Border Protection in the Federal Register 

22 on December 23, 2020 (85 Fed. Reg. 83984). 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4319

Elo Touch Solutions, Inc.:

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

_5-30-2019.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
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

HCR20012, 223 ton Capacity, 11.81 in Stroke, Double-Acting, High Tonnage Hydraulic Cylinder; 

Maximum Operating Pressure psi: 10150; Weight Kgs: 168; Oil Capacity Advance cm3: 8506; 

Stroke Ranges mm: 290 - 379

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.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 61 (Thursday, March 30, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 16532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8016]



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

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


``FEDERAL REGISTER'' NUMBER: 95-7387.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED DATE AND TIME: Thursday, March 30, 1995 at 10:00 
a.m. Meeting open to the Public.

THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WERE ADDED TO THE AGENDA:

Regulations:
    Proposed Regulation Schedule (continued from meeting of March 
23, 1995)
    Personal Use of Campaign Funds; Announcement of Effective Date 
(11 CFR Parts, 100, 104 and 113)

DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, April 4, 1995 at 2:00 p.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 437g.
Audits conduced pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 437g, Sec. 438(b), and 
Title 26, U.S.C.
Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or 
arbitration
Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a 
particular employee

DATE AND TIME: Thursday, April 6, 1995 at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

Correction and Approval of Minutes
Advisory Opinion 1995-07: Kenneth D. Albertsen on behalf of Key Bank 
of Alaska
Regulations:
Presidential Primary and General Election Regulations: Draft Final 
Rules and Explanation and Justification
Administrative Matters

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:  Mr. Ron Harris, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 219-4155.
Delores Hardy,
Administrative Assistant.
[FR Doc. 95-8016 Filed 3-28-95; 3:46 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-M
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6187

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. KONO MICHELLE HYMAN , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Elizabeth City

. James C. Dever III , Chief District Judge. ( 2:10

- cr
- 00015

- D

- 1 )

Submitted : June 28, 2017 Decided: July 18, 2017

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Kono Michelle Hyman, Appellant Pro Se. Edward D. Gray, Assistant United States Attorney, Scott Andrew Lemmon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kono Michelle Hyman appeals the district court ’ s order denying his motion to
reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). We review a claim that the district court misapprehended the scope of its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2) de novo
and a district court’s decision on whether to reduce a sentence under that section for
abuse of discretion

. United States v. Ma nn , 709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir. 201 3 ). Hyman argues that the district court misapprehended the scope of its authority by failing to recognize the extent of the reduction authorized , as required under Dillon v.
United States , 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010) , and U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10, p.s. (2010). The district court, however, acknowledged Hy man’s request for a sentence below his amended Guidelines range and asserted its discretion to reduce Hyman’s sentence , which was already at the lowest term in his amended Guidelines
range
. The court therefore understood its authority to reduce Hyman’s se ntence. S ee United States v. Stewart , 595 F.3d 197, 203 (4th Cir. 2010) (allowing sentence reduction below amended Guidelines range under certain circumstances). The district court simply declined to do so based on the facts and circumstances of Hyman’s c ase , as evaluated under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors

. In light of the “extremely broad discretion” a district court enjoys when weighing those factors, see United States v. Jeffery , 631 F.3d 669, 679 (4th Cir. 2011), we discern no a buse of
discretion in the district court’ s decision to deny Hyman a sentence reduction.3 Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’ s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 2598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-591]



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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5137-3]


Clean Air Act Advisory Committee; Meetings

ACTION: Clean Air Act Advisory Committee notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the 
Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) on November 19, 1990 to 
provide independent advice and counsel to EPA on policy issues 
associated with the implementation of the Clean Air Act of 1990. The 
Advisory Committee shall be consulted on economic, environmental, 
technical, scientific, and enforcement policy issues.

OPEN MEETING NOTICE: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. App. 2 10(a)(2), notice is 
hereby given that the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee will hold its 
next open meeting on Thursday, January 26, 1995 from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 
p.m., at the Dulles Hyatt, 2300 Dulles Corner Blvd. Herndon, VA. 
Seating will be available on a first come, first served basis. The 
three sub-committees of the CAAAC (Permits/NSR/Toxics Integration, 
Economic Incentives and Regulatory Innovation and Linking Energy, 
Transportation and Air Quality Concerns) will be conducting meetings at 
the Dulles Hyatt on Wednesday, January 25, beginning at 4:00 p.m.
    The agenda will include a discussion of the progress of Clean Air 
Act implementation in 1995 and a follow-up on the OTC-LEV decision.

INSPECTION OF COMMITTEE DOCUMENTS: The committee agenda and any 
documents prepared for the meeting will be publicly available at the 
meeting. Thereafter, these documents, together with the CAAAC meeting 
minutes will be available for public inspection in EPA Air Docket 
Number A-94-34 in Room 1500 of EPA Headquarters 401 M street, S.W., 
Washington, D.C.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning this meeting of the CAAAC 
please contact Karen Smith, Office of Air and Radiation, US EPA (202) 
260-6379, FAX (202) 260-5155, or by mail at US EPA, Office of Air and 
Radiation (Mail Code 6101), Washington, D.C. 20460.

    Dated: January 4, 1995.
Mary D. Nichols,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 95-591 Filed 1-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


1.       Simione Central, Inc., a Georgia corporation authorized to do business
         in Connecticut, Massachusetts and Texas

2.       Simione Central Consulting, Inc., a Georgia corporation authorized to
         do business in Connecticut and Massachusetts

3.       Simione Central National, Inc., a Georgia corporation authorized to do
         business in Texas and Connecticut

4.       SC Holding, Inc., a Georgia corporation

5.       InfoMed, Inc., a New Jersey corporation

6.       Script Systems, Inc., a New Jersey corporation (Inactive)
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-20-00145-CR

JIMMY DUANE EASTER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

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 court’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
#### Craig S. ADAMS, Appellant, v. Michael GROOSE, Lucreta Bright, “John Doe I,” “John Doe II,” and “John Doe III,” Respondents.

No. WD 49487.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Dec. 20, 1994.

Craig S. Adams, pro se.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Norbert J. Glassl, Andrea K. Spillars, Asst. At-tys. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondents.

Before SPINDEN, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and ELLIS, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Craig S. Adams, a penitentiary inmate, appeals the trial court’s order dismissing his claim that prison officials intentionally deprived him of personal property. We affirm the court’s judgment. Rule 84.16(b).
#### In re the Marriage of Donna Gail COKER, Appellant, v. Colin Eddie COKER, Respondent.

No. WD 45829.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Nov. 3, 1992.

Thomas R. Summers, St. Joseph, for appellant.

Barbara A. Braznell, St. Joseph, for respondent.

Before ULRICH, P.J., and SHANGLER and FENNER, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from order granting respondent’s motion to modify dissolution decree.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).