alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 62 (Friday, March 31, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 16654]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7868]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Health Resources and Services Administration


Availability of Funds for the National Health Service Corps Loan 
Repayment Program and Grants for State Loan Repayment Programs

AGENCY: Health Resources and Services Administration, PHS.

ACTION: Notice of extension of application due date.

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

SUMMARY: This notice extends the due date previously published in the 
Federal Register on March 6, 1995 (60 FR 12242-12245) for applications 
to provide grants to States to assist them in operating programs for 
the repayment of educational loans of health professionals in return 
for practice in federally designated health professional shortage areas 
to increase the availability of primary health services. The new due 
date is May 15, 1995. All other information remains unchanged.

    Dated: March 27, 1995.
Ciro V. Sumaya,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-7868 Filed 3-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-15-M
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Benny Fuentes, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his pretrial photographic identification. From our review of the record, we conclude that the suppression court correctly found that the identification procedure was not unduly suggestive *(see, Simmons v United States,*390 US 377, 384-386; *People v Olkoski,*131 AD2d 706; *People v Emmons,*123 AD2d 475, 476, *Iv denied*69 NY2d 827). With regard to defendant’s remaining contentions, because defendant consented to the alleged erroneous admission of evidence and did not object to the alleged acts of prosecutorial misconduct, they have not been preserved for our review (CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to reach them as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (CPL 470.15 [6]). (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, D’Amico, J.—robbery, second degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
*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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-10232

Summary Calendar

In the Matter of: AIRPORT PROPERTIES,

 Debtors.

City of Dallas,

Appellant,

versus

Airport Properties,

Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(4:96-CV-956-A)

July 24, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, JONES and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The City of Dallas appeals the district court’s affirmance of an order of the

bankruptcy court granting Airport Properties’s motion to assume lease. Our review of

the record reflects neither clearly erroneous findings of fact nor errors of law. Based
2

on the facts found and analysis made by the district court in its Memorandum Opinion

and Order signed and entered on February 7, 1997, we AFFIRM.
Exhibit 4.48





Exhibit 4.48




LETTER OF UNDERTAKING




Mr. Xue Zhixin




Address: 25th Floor, Jin Gang Hotel,

No.91 Bing Zhou North Road,

Taiyuan City, Shanxi Province




Aero-Biotech Science & Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as
“Aero-Biotech”) is a wholly foreign owned enterprise legally established and validly
existing within the territory of the People’s Republic of China. According to a letter of
undertaking (hereinafter referred to as the “Letter of Undertaking” ) issued by all the
shareholders of Taiyuan Primalights III Agriculture Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to
as “P3A” to Aero-Biotech on July 13, 2007, all the shareholders of P3A undertook to
transfer to Aero-Biotech without compensation and after deducting all taxes payable any interest or
dividends and other distributions collected or received by Aero-Biotech from P3A, unless the
transfer is restricted by laws, regulations or legal procedures.



Aero-Biotech hereby irrevocably undertakes to Mr. Xue Zhixin that:



To the extent permitted by laws, regulations or legal procedures of the People’s Republic of
China, Aero-Biotech shall transfer without compensation and after deducting all taxes payable to
Mr. Xue Zhixin and/or any person designated by him any interest or dividends earned by the
shareholders of P3A from P3A and other distributions made by P3A (all taxes payable deducted), if
any, which are collected by Aero-Biotech from the shareholders of P3A upon the execution of the
Letter of Undertaking.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Aero-Biotech Science & Technology Co., Ltd.
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	 	/s/ Xie Tao	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Name:
	 	Xie Tao	 	 
	 

	 	Title:
	 	Chief Executive Officer	 	 






Seal:




July 13, 2010
T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N NO. 03-13-00759- CV In re Tom m y Mobley ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N The pe tition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P . 52.8(a) .

__________________________________________ Scott K. Field, Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Field Filed: De cembe r 10, 2013
Opinion issued April 21, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-21-00461-CR

———————————

IN RE ROBERT JAMES CAMPBELL, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Robert James Campbell, has filed a pro se petition for writ of 

mandamus, complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on several motions seeking 

nunc pro tunc judgment which relator claims to have filed in 2019.1 This is the 

second petition for writ of mandamus filed by relator challenging the trial court’s 

1 The underlying case is The State of Texas v. Robert James Campbell, cause number 

586190, pending in the 232nd District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable 

Josh Hill presiding.
2

alleged failure to rule on motions for nunc pro tunc judgment. This Court denied the 

first petition in appellate case number 01-20-00270-CR on the ground that relator 

had not included any documents and thus, failed to provide a sufficient record. See 

In re Campbell, No. 01-20-00270-CR, 2020 WL 6589333 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st 

Dist.] Sept. 1, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show that the act he seeks to 

compel is a ministerial one and that he has no adequate remedy at law for obtaining 

the relief he seeks. See In re Powell, 516 S.W.3d 488, 494 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). 

If a party properly files a motion with the trial court in a criminal case, the court has 

a ministerial duty to rule on that motion within a reasonable time after the motion 

has been submitted to the court or after the party requested a ruling. See In re 

Flanigan, 578 S.W.3d 634, 635–36 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, orig. 

proceeding). To establish that he is entitled to mandamus relief for the trial court’s 

failure to rule on a motion, the relator must present a record showing that “(1) the 

motion was filed and brought to the attention of the respondent judge for a ruling, 

and (2) the respondent judge has not ruled on the motion within a reasonable time 

after the motion was submitted to the trial court for a ruling or after the party 

requested a ruling.” In re Gomez, 602 S.W.3d 71, 73 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th 

Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding).
3

Relator has attached a certified mail receipt, but he has not included any of 

the motions he claims to have filed with the trial court. Moreover, relator has not 

established that he brought the motions to the trial judge’s attention. Accordingly, 

relator has not established his entitlement to mandamus relief. See id.

We deny the petition. Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Goodman, and Guerra.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00086-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.D.A., A 

CHILD

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

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF WICHITA COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from the trial court=s February 15, 

2011 “Order Terminating Parental Rights.” The trial court subsequently granted 

appellant=s motion for new trial on March 8, 2011, while it still had plenary 

jurisdiction over the case. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(e).

On March 10, 2011, we informed the parties that it appeared the trial 

court=s granting of the motion for new trial rendered this appeal moot and that the 

appeal would be dismissed as moot unless, on or before March 21, 2011, any 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for 

continuing the appeal. Appellant responded, agreeing that the appeal should be 

dismissed as moot. 

Accordingly, on this court=s own motion, we dismiss the appeal as moot. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GABRIEL, J.

DELIVERED: April 7, 2011
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 68 (Monday, April 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 18145]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8274]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-30,864]


Bridgestone/Firestone, Incorporated, Decatur, Illinois; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on March 6, 1995 in response to a worker petition which 
was filed on March 6, 1995 on behalf of workers at Bridgestone/
Firestone, Incorporated, Decatur, Illinois.
    The petitioning group of workers is subject to an ongoing 
investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued (TA-W-
30,787). Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve 
no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, D.C. this 29th day of March, 1995.
Victor J. Trunzo,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-8274 Filed 4-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-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-2018-0025-2152

Primex Family of Companies:

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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3028

LED Technologies: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_05.09.19.pdf. 

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

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

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

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

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

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

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

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4786

Enerpac:

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
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. (S)1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Diametrics Medical, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, W. Glen Winchell,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S)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.


                                                       /s/ W. Glen Winchell
                                                       -------------------------
                                                       W. Glen Winchell
                                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                                       March 15, 2004
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4752

Horizon Hobby LLC: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_05.09.19.pdf. 

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

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

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

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

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

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

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

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

MATTHEW DARROW,

Respondent

v.

PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES 

CORPORATION,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 81 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 22nd day of August, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

FOR PUBLICATION

In re KEILLOR, Minors. June 28, 2018

No. 340395

Wayne Circuit Court

Family Division

LC No. 16-523730-NA

Before: RONAYNE KRAUSE, P.J., and MARKEY and RIORDAN, JJ. 

RONAYNE KRAUSE, P.J. (concurring). 

I respectfully concur in affirming the trial court. I am unpersuaded that the evidence in 

this record adequately establishes that sexual abuse of either child by a nonparent adult actually 

occurred. However, any acts the nonparent adult did or did not perpetrate against the children is 

irrelevant. If only one statutory ground for termination is properly established, a parent’s 

parental rights must be terminated unless the trial court finds that doing so is contrary to the best 

interests of the children. In re Powers Minors, 244 Mich App 111, 118; 624 NW2d 472 (2000); 

In re BZ, 264 Mich App 286, 301; 690 NW2d 505 (2004). On this record, the trial court must be 

affirmed. 

The record conclusively establishes that respondent mother physically abused the 

children; she even admitted to beating them with an extension cord and was convicted of thirddegree child abuse. The trial court could have left us with more specific factual findings to 

review, but it is clear that it chose to believe the testimony given by one of the children, which is 

the prerogative of the trial court, not this Court. McGonegal v McGonegal, 46 Mich 66, 67; 8 

NW 724 (1881). Considering all the evidence, and specifically: (1) Respondent mother’s bizarre 

testimony that she would do anything to bring the children home but would have agreed with the 

children’s wishes never to see her again, had the one child who stated she was sexually abused 

by the non-parent adult agreed to withdraw her allegation of sexual abuse; (2) Respondent’s

apparent lack of concern for the serious trauma the children suffered; (3) The trial court’s readily 

discernable finding that the children would suffer additional harm if returned to respondent,

based in part on respondent’s physical abuse of the child, it is clear that the trial court’s decision

is amply supported. Additionally, respondent mother’s clear disregard for the children’s 

allegations further reflects an equal disregard for their well-being. I find that MCL 

712A.19b(3)(j) has been more than adequately established by clear and convincing evidence. 

Because I find one statutory ground for termination overwhelmingly established, I would 

not address the issue of the alleged sexual abuse because doing so is unnecessary. And as can be 
-2-

seen from the lead opinion and the dissenting opinion, it is something about which there can be a 

serious debate. Not so with the physical abuse: It unequivocally occurred. Only the severity of 

the physical abuse is at all in question and again, I defer to the trial court’s findings regarding 

credibility of the witnesses. Id. 

Other than the sexual abuse allegation itself, I agree with the lead opinion’s assessment of 

the best interests of the children. Consequently, I concur in affirming. 

/s/ Amy Ronayne Krause
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Killbuck Bancshares, 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, Luther E. Proper, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Luther E. Proper   
|    |  | Luther E. Proper       
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer



May 11, 2005



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