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

April 12, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3769

ECM Industries 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

_04.15.19.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,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
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-2018-0025-3320

ECM Industries 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

_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 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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DARNELL STANLEY

, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 1 3

- 0430 (RC)

)

ISAAC FULWOOD, JR., et al

., )

)

Defendant s

. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the court is Defendant s ’ Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion

for Summary Judgment [Dkt. # 8]

. On July 12, 2013, plaintiff Darnell Stanley was advised to

respond to the motion by August 12, 2013, or risk summary dismissal of the case. See Order

[Dkt. # 10]. Mr. Stanley was granted additional time to September 9, 2013, and was again warned

of the potential consequence of dismissal if he did not respond. See Aug. 6, 2013 Min. Order.

Mr. Stanley has not complied with the orders and has not sought additional time to do so. Hence,

this case will be dismissed on what is considered to be a conceded motion to dismiss. See Twelve

John Does v. District of Columbia , 117 F.3d 571, 577 (D.C. Cir. 1997) ( “Where the district court

relies on the absence of a response as a basis for treating a motion as conceded, [the District of

Columbia Circuit] honor[s] its enforcement” of the local rule ) ; accord Fox v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,

389 F.3d 1291, 1294

- 95 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ; FDIC v. Bender , 127 F.3d 58, 67

- 68 (D.C. Cir. 1997)

.

A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

________/s/____________

RUDOLPH CONTRERAS

United States District Judge

Dated : October 16 , 2013
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             668,117
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,324,294
<ALLOWANCES>                                       405,660
<INVENTORY>                                      5,209,243
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,617,184
<PP&E>                                         113,776,345
<DEPRECIATION>                                  43,736,106
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 159,686,007
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,375,181
<BONDS>                                        105,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               244
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,380,003
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   159,686,007
<SALES>                                         69,164,774
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                69,164,774
<CGS>                                           52,447,753
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   63,827,214
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    18,923
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,561,657
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,243,020)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (324,555)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,918,465)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,918,465)
<EPS-BASIC>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0



</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas July 19, 2021 No. 04-21-00241-CV Lucia SALDIVAR , Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Mark Anthony Saldivar, Appellant

v. Joshua F. WHITE , Individually and d/b/a 88 Classic Records, and 88 Classic LLC, Appellees From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-CI-11437 Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R On May 21, 2021, the trial court signed an order granting special appearances and dismissing plaintiff’s claims against defendants Joshua F. White, Individually and d/b/a 88 Classic Records, and 88 Classic LLC. Appellant’s notice of appeal was due to be filed on June 10, 2021. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.1(b). Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on June 14, 2021. Appellant has not filed a motion for extension of time to file her notice of appeal. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.3. A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the fifteen-day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). However, the appellant must offer a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a timely manner. See id. ; T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.3, 10.5(b)(1)(C). It is therefore ORDERED that appellant file, no later than July 26, 2021 , a response presenting a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a timely manner. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, the appeal will be dismissed. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3(c).

_________________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 19th day of July, 2021.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4970

Apergy ESP Systems, 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 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
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-2018-0025-3342

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
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-2018-0025-3110

CW Bearing USA, 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/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>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-97772) pertaining to the 1994 Incentive Stock Option and
Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan of InfoMed Holdings, Inc. of our report dated
March 21, 1997, except for Note 16 as to which the date is March 26, 1997, with
respect to the financial statements of Simione Central Holdings, Inc. included
in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996.

                                          /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 28, 1997
#### Howard Dale HORNER, Appellant, v. STANDARD STATE BANK & TRUST, Respondent.

No. WD 45726.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Nov. 3, 1992.

Bradley A. Constance, Independence, for appellant.

Gene A. DeLeve, David J. Weimer, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before BERREY, P.J., and ULRICH and SMART, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from verdict entered in favor of respondent Standard State Bank & Trust following trial to the court.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
The Honorable Cynthia Holcomb Hall, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth *

Circuit, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 96-2510EM

_____________

Stephen Martin, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Michael Groose, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

_____________

 Submitted: November 18, 1998

Filed: November 27, 1998 

_____________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, FAGG, and HALL, Circuit Judges. *

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Stephen Martin asserts three claims in an effort to reverse the district court's

denial of Martin's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. Based on

Martin's failure to file a state court proceeding for postconviction relief, we conclude

that two of Martin's claims are procedurally barred. The district court correctly

rejected Martin's remaining claim because the trial court's refusal to declare a mistrial

did not violate Martin's due process rights. An extended discussion of Martin's

arguments would serve no useful purpose because the controlling law is clear and an
-2-

opinion would lack precedential value. We thus affirm the district court. See 8th Cir.

R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 17

- 00634

- CV
Melanie Wofford and Wofford McAllen Armature Works, Inc. v. Tatiyana Geneva Altecor
On Appeal from the 206th District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. C

- 1247

- 17

- D

JUDGMENT
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant s, Melanie Wofford and Woff o rd Mc Allen Armature Works, Inc. We further order this decision certified below for observance. December 21, 2017
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 26, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-10422

Ellison Educational Equipment 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/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September_2019.pdf. 

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 exclusion notice. The scope of the exclusion is governed by the scope of the 10-digit HTSUS 

subheadings and product descriptions in the annex to the product exclusion notice, and not by the 

product descriptions set out in any particular request for exclusion. 

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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 22, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15174-15175]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7027]



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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Voluntary Service National Advisory Committee; Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs gives notice under Public Law 
92-463 [[Page 15175]] that the Executive Committee, Department of 
Veterans Affairs Voluntary Service (VAVS) National Advisory Committee 
(NAC) will meet April 6-7, 1995, at the Disabled American Veterans 
(DAV) National Service and Legislative Headquarters, 807 Maine Avenue 
SW., Washington, DC. The meeting is scheduled from 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. 
on April 6 and from 8:30 a.m.-3 p.m. on April 7.
    The NAC consists of fifty-four national organizations and advises 
the Under Secretary for Health and other members of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs Central Office staff on how to coordinate and promote 
volunteer activities within VA facilities. The Executive Committee 
consists of nineteen representatives from the NAC member organizations 
and acts as the NAC governing body in the interim period between NAC 
Annual Meetings. Business topics for the Executive Committee meeting 
include: VAVS program progress since the 1994 NAC Annual Meeting; 1995 
and 1996 NAC Annual Meeting planning and subcommittee reports.
    The meeting is open to the public. Individuals interested in 
attending are encouraged to contact: Mr. Jim Mayer, Administrative 
Officer, Voluntary Service Office (167), Department of Veterans 
Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20420, (202) 535-7405.

    Dated: February 28, 1995.

    By Direction of the Secretary.
Heyward Bannister,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-7027 Filed 3-21-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rodney Higdon, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03) *958is supported by legally sufficient evidence *(see, People v Pons,*68 NY2d 264; *People v Carrion,*136 AD2d 649, *Iv denied*71 NY2d 967; *People v [Mark] Taylor,*121 AD2d 581, *Iv denied*68 NY2d 817). The trier of fact properly could have inferred the requisite intent from the circumstances surrounding the shooting *(see, People v Taylor, supra,*at 582; *People v Evans,*106 AD2d 527). Further, where one who possesses a loaded firearm is not licensed to do so, possession of that firearm is presumptive evidence of an intent to use it unlawfully against another *(see,*Penal Law § 265.15 [4]; *People v Wooten,*149 AD2d 751, *Iv denied*74 NY2d 822; *People v Carrion, supra).*Additionally, we conclude that the verdicts were not repugnant. Acquittal of the crimes of attempted second degree murder (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.25 [1]) and second degree assault (Penal Law § 120.05 [2]) was not inconsistent with conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03). Attempted murder and second degree assault require an intent to kill and injure, respectively, whereas criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree requires only an intent to use the weapon unlawfully against another. Finally, defendant’s sentence was not harsh and excessive *(see, People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305). (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Celli, J.—criminal possession of weapon, second degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 11
- 00331
- CR
EX PARTE FELICIANO S ALDIVAR ,

From the 40th District Court Ellis County, Texas Trial Court No. 26149CR/A

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Feliciano Saldivar has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with respect to his felony conviction. This court, as a n intermediate court of appeals , has no jurisdiction over post

- conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases. See Ex parte
Marti nez, 175 S.W.3d 510, 512

- 13 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2005 , orig. proceeding) (“ Our law requires post

- conviction applications for writs of habeas corpus, for felony cases in which the death penalty was not assessed, to be filed in the court of original convicti on, made returnable to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. ”) (citing T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art . 11.07(3)(a), (b) )

. Because we have no jurisdiction over this post

- conviction habeas corpus proceeding, we dismiss it.Ex parte Saldivar Page 2 REX D. DAVIS Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis , and Justice Scoggins Dismissed Opinion delivered and filed October 19, 2011 Do n ot p ublish [OT06]