alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2981

Northern Tool & Equipment:

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
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4266 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4266

   To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 to increase 
 funding for stormwater management for Atlanta, Georgia, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 May 19 (legislative day, May 17), 2022

  Mr. Ossoff introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 to increase 
 funding for stormwater management for Atlanta, Georgia, 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 ``City of Atlanta Stormwater 
Management Act''.

SEC. 2. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, ATLANTA, GEORGIA.

    Section 219(e)(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
(106 Stat. 4835; 110 Stat. 3757; 113 Stat. 334) is amended by striking 
``$25,000,000'' and inserting ``$75,000,000''.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action No. 15-1711 (CKK)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On June 29, 2016, the defendant, by counsel, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint 

[ECF No. 14]. Because a ruling on the motion to dismiss potentially could dispose of this case, 

the Court advised the pro se plaintiff of his obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and the rules of this Court. Specifically, the Court warned the plaintiff that, if he 

failed to file an opposition or other response to the defendant’s motion by July 29, 2016, the 

Court would treat the motion as conceded. To date, the plaintiff has not filed an opposition or a 

motion for more time to do so. Accordingly, the Court will grant the defendant’s motion as 

conceded and will dismiss this action. An Order is issued separately.

/s/

DATE: August 12, 2016 COLLEEN KOLLAR KOTELLY

United States District Court Judge

WILFREDO GONZALEZ-LORA, :

:

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, :

:

:

Defendant. :
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-2018-0025-2936

JAE Electronics, 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
#### Bernard J. DOLENZ, Appellant, v. Terry PULSE, M.D., Appellee.

No. 05-89-01198-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas.

May 23, 1990.

Rehearing Denied July 3, 1990.

*573Bernard J. Dolenz, Houston, for appellant.

M. William Nelson, Dallas, for appellee.

Before HOWELL, BAKER and WHITTINGTON, JJ.

OPINION

BAKER, Justice.

Bernard J. Dolenz sued Terry Pulse, M.D., for defamation. The trial court directed a verdict in Pulse’s favor. Dolenz asserts thirteen points of error, contending the trial court abused its discretion in making certain pretrial and trial rulings. We affirm the trial court’s judgment without reaching any of these points.

When a trial court directs a verdict for a defendant, in order for the plaintiff to reverse the trial court’s judgment, it is necessary for him to establish that the peremptory instruction cannot be supported on the grounds asserted by the defendant. *See McKelvy v. Barber,*381 S.W.2d 59, 62 (Tex.1964); *McAx Sign Co. v. Royal Coach, Inc.,*547 S.W.2d 368, 369 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1977, no writ). In this case, Dolenz has failed to attack the trial court’s action in directing the verdict against him either by a point of error or in argument under any point of error. We hold that Dolenz has waived his right to question the trial court’s actions and that he has failed to discharge his burden of establishing that the instructed verdict was improper. *See McKelvy,*381 S.W.2d at 62.

This same principle prevents our consideration of Dolenz’s thirteen points of error, all of which complain of the trial court’s alleged abuse of discretion in making pretrial and trial rulings. None of these points, even if sustained, would be grounds for reversal because the court’s action in directing a verdict has not been attacked and cannot be set aside. Because Dolenz failed to attack the directed verdict, he has failed to show that the errors complained of “amounted to such a denial of his rights as was reasonably calculated to cause and probably did cause the rendition of an improper judgment in the case.” *See McAx Sign Co.,*547 S.W.2d at 370; Tex.R.App.P. 81(b)(1). We overrule points of error one through thirteen.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
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-2018-0025-3024

C&K Components, 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

General Counsel
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 1 9
- 0 630 STATE OF MONTANA ,

Plaintiff and Appellee,
v. MICHAEL ROBERT LONG ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including August 19 , 20 20 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 30 2020

06/30/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0630
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 24 - 0482 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MARK ANDREW PARTRIDGE,

Defendant and Appellant.

**G RANT**  Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until November 8 , 2024, to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court October 4 2024

10/04/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0482
Exhibit 32.2


                    Certification of Interim CFO 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of GAMCO Investors, Inc.
(the "Company") for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), John C.
Ferrara, as Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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.


/s/ John C. Ferrara
-------------------
Name:  John C. Ferrara
Title: Interim Chief Financial Officer
Date:  April 13, 2007

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of Bright Horizons Family Solutions,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, David H. Lissy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

      (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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                                      /s/ David H. Lissy
                                      ------------------
                                      David H. Lissy
                                      Chief Executive Officer
                                      August 9, 2004
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 Quarterly  Report of Salisbury  Bancorp,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John F.
Perotti,  Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,  and I, John F. Foley,  Chief
Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (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 result of operations
            of the Company.

/s/  John F. Perotti                                /s/  John F. Foley
--------------------                                ------------------
     John F. Perotti                                     John F. Foley
     Chief Executive Officer                             Chief Financial Officer



                                       23
Exhibit 32.1

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
                         PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350

      Pursuant to, and for  purposes  only of, 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350,  each of the
undersigned  hereby  certifies that (i) the Quarterly Report of Peoples Bancorp,
Inc.  on Form  10-QSB for the  quarter  ended June 30,  2004,  as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission  (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the
requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,
and (ii) information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects,  the financial condition and results of operations of Peoples Bancorp,
Inc. and Subsidiary.


Date:  August 13, 2004                /s/ Thomas G. Stevenson
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Thomas G. Stevenson
                                      President/Chief Executive Officer



Date:  August 13, 2004                /s/ Ina May Puppe Reed
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Ina May Puppe Reed
                                      Vice President/Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jerry L. WHITE, Appellant.

No. WD 44437.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Sept. 28, 1993.

Gary E. Brotherton, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before BRECKENRIDGE, P.J., and KENNEDY and LOWENSTEIN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from a jury conviction of stealing over $150, § 570.030, RSMo 1986, and from sentence of four years’ imprisonment.

Judgment affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.-25(b).
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4053

New Beverage Ventures:

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/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.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,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
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-2018-0025-1807

Illinois Tool Works:

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
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ANTHONY B OGAR IN,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. S. HATTON, W arde n; XAVIER B EC ERR A, R e sponde nts-Appe lle e s. No. 21-55693 D.C . No. 3:16-c v-02793-B TM -M SB
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia B arry Te d M oskowitz , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 13, 2023 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : C ALLAHAN, R . NELSON, a n d H.A. THOM AS, C irc uit Judge s. Anthony B oga rin a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his m otion to re ope n the t im e to file an a

p p e a l of the de nia l of his 28 U.S.C . § 2254 ha be a s c orpus pe tition c ha lle n g ing his c o nvic tion for a tte m pte d first de gre e burgla

ry . W e have 

# F IL ED
JAN 23 2023 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291. W e re vie w for a buse of disc re t ion a

n orde r de ny ing a m otion to re o pe n, In reSte in , 197 F.3d 421, 424 (9th C i r. 1999), a nd we
a ffirm
. 1. The distric t c ourt de nie d B oga rin’ s Pe t ition for W

rit of Ha be a s C orpus in June 2020. Howe ve r, B oga rin did not file

a tim e ly pe tition for re vie w. R athe r, in April 2021, B oga

rin file d a m otion for a

n e xte nsion of time to file an a p pe a l,
c la im ing tha

t he did not re c e ive notic e of the de n ia l until M arc h 2021. B e c a use the re are no e xc e ptions to re ope ning be y ond 180 da y s from the e ntry of judgm e nt, the d istric t c o urt prope rly c o nc l ude d tha

t Fe d e ra l R

ule of Appe lla

t e Proc e d ure 4(a )(6) a nd Fe d e ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e dure 60(b) pre c lude d re lie f. 1 Se eIn reSte in , 197 F.3d a

t 425–26. 2. B oga

rin ra ise s one unc e rtifie d issue on a ppe a l, a rguing tha

t he se nt a le tte r in Se pte m

be r 2019 in re sponse to the m a gistra te judge ’ s re port a

nd
re c o m m e ndation, whic h

he a s ks us to c onstrue a s a tim e ly a ppe a l. Eve n a ssum ing that B oga rin se nt suc h a

le tte r, a pre m ature a

ppe a l of the m a gistra

te judge ’ s re port
and re c om

m e ndation is not c

ure d by the distric t c ourt’ s subse que nt e ntry of fina l judgm e nt. Se eSe rine v . Pe te rson , 989 F.2d 371, 372–73 (9th C ir. 1993). Ac c ordingly , we de c line to c o n side r this unc e rtifie d issue , be c a

use B oga rin fa ile d

1 B oga rin a c knowle dge s tha

t we are bound by In reSte in
. 2to m ake the re q u ire d “ s ubsta

ntia l showing of the

de nia l of a

c onstitutiona

l right.” Se e 2 8 U.S.C . § 2253(c )(2); se e also Slack v . Mc D anie l , 529 U.S. 473, 483–84 (2000). AFFIRM E D.

3
EXHIBIT 10.12

                          (ALL AMOUNTS IN U.S. DOLLARS)

                              VALUESTAR CORPORATION

                        15% SUBORDINATED PROMISSORY NOTE
                (First Amendment to note dated November 15, 1998)


FOR VALUE RECEIVED,  ValueStar Corporation, the undersigned Colorado corporation
(together with all successors,  the "Company"), and DAVRIC CORPORATION, a Nevada
corporation  (Noteholder)  hereby renews and amends that certain promissory note
dated  November  15, 1998 in the  principal  amount of $300,000 by amending  the
following terms:

         o The Maturity Date is amended to June 30, 2000.

The Company in connection with this renewal has issued to Noteholder warrants on
30,000 common shares by separate  agreement as additional  consideration for the
Note and this renewal.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  the undersigned  Company and Noteholder have executed
this First Amendment effective as of June 30, 1999.

                                        VALUESTAR CORPORATION



                                        By /s/ JAMES A. BARNES
                                        James A. Barnes, Secretary and Treasurer


                                        DAVRIC CORPORATION



                                        By /s/ JERRY E. POLIS
                                        Jerry E. Polis, President