alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4303 

To provide for a period of exclusivity for first interchangeable biological 

products. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 25, 2022 

Mr. KAINE (for himself and Ms. COLLINS) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To provide for a period of exclusivity for first interchangeable 

biological products. 

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 ‘‘Interchangeable Bio5 logics Clarity Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATIONS TO EXCLUSIVITY PROVISIONS FOR 

7 FIRST INTERCHANGEABLE BIOSIMILAR BIO8 LOGICAL PRODUCTS. 

9 Section 351(k)(6) of the Public Health Service Act 

10 (42 U.S.C. 262(k)(6)) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4303 IS

1 (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)— 

2 (A) by striking ‘‘Upon review of’’ and in3 serting ‘‘The Secretary shall not make approval 

4 effective of’’; 

5 (B) by striking ‘‘relying on’’ and inserting 

6 ‘‘for an interchangeable biological product that 

7 relies on’’; and 

8 (C) by striking ‘‘the Secretary shall not 

9 make a determination under paragraph (4) that 

10 the second or subsequent biological product is 

11 interchangeable for any condition of use’’; and 

12 (2) in the flush text that follows subparagraph 

13 (C), by striking the period and inserting ‘‘, and the 

14 term ‘first interchangeable biosimilar biological prod15 uct’ means any interchangeable biosimilar biological 

16 product that is approved on the first day on which 

17 such a product is approved as interchangeable with 

18 the reference product.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 60 (Wednesday, March 29, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 16115]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7722]



========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 29, 1995 / 
Notices
[[Page 16115]]

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


Forms Under Review by Office of Management and Budget

March 24, 1995.
    The Department of Agriculture has submitted to OMB for review the 
following proposal for the collection of information under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) since 
the last list was published. This list is grouped into new proposals, 
revisions, extension, or reinstatements. Each entry contains the 
following information:
    (1) Agency proposing the information collection; (2) Title the 
information collection; (3) Form number(s), if applicable; (4) Who will 
be required or asked to report; (5) An estimate of the number of 
responses; (6) An estimate of the total number of hours needed to 
provide the information; (7) Name and telephone number of the agency 
contact person.
    Questions about the items in the listing should be directed to the 
agency person named at the end of each entry. Copies of the proposed 
forms and supporting documents may be obtained from: Department 
Clearance Officer, USDA, OIRM, Room 404-W Admin. Bldg., Washington, 
D.C. 20250, (202) 690-2118.

Extension

<bullet> Food and Consumer Service
Annual Report of State Revenue Matching
FCS-13
State, Local or Tribal Government; 57 responses; 4,560 hours
Alan Rich (703) 305-2113

Reinstatement

<bullet> Rural Utilities Service
Financial and Statistical Report for Telephone Borrowers
REA 479
Individual or households; Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit 
institutions; 900 responses; 7,740 hours
Jonathan Claffey (202) 720-9539

<bullet> Rural Utilities Service
RUS Policy on Audits of Electric and Telephone Borrowers
Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit 
institutions; 3,872 responses; 20,330 hours
Roberta Purcell (202) 720-5227
Larry K. Roberson,
Deputy Departmental Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-7722 Filed 3-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-01-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2726

Price Pump Company:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20. 

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

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

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Soil Management and Sugarbeet Research: Fort Collins, CO
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Fort Collins, Colorado Center for Agricultural Resources Research Soil Management and Sugarbeet Research Research





- ARS National Programs
- Search for a scientific manuscript
- Search for a research project
- ARS Software
- Programs and Projects
- Collaborations
- Subjects of Investigation
- Publications

Research Projects Subjects of Investigation at this LocationEach ARS research project has related subjects of investigation.  Listed below are the subjects of investigation currently conducted at this location.
Clicking on a subject of investigation will list the research projects within that  subject of investigation.Subjects of Investigation
                            Soil
                                Soil and land, general
                                Sugar beet


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**77 CAF 14-02198**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF THOMAS W. MURTAUGH, JR., PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,
V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSE M. GIBSON, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

----------------------------------------------- IN THE MATTER OF ROSE M. GIBSON, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V
THOMAS W. MURTAUGH, JR., RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. (APPEAL NO. 3.)

TRACY L. PUGLIESE, CLINTON, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT AND PETITIONERAPPELLANT.
JOHN J. RASPANTE, UTICA, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT AND RESPONDENTRESPONDENT.
PETER J. DIGIORGIO, JR., ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, UTICA.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Herkimer County (Anthony J. Garramone, J.H.O.), entered November 19, 2014 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order granted Thomas W. Murtaugh, Jr. sole custody of the parties’ children. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Same memorandum as in Matter of Gibson v Murtaugh ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d ___ [Mar. 18, 2016]).

Entered: March 18, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4500

Williams Controls Incorporated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20.

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

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

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs. 

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PEDRO ANTONIO CHAVEZ-CRUZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 12-70960 

Agency No. A099-669-563 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 24, 2017**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, 

Circuit Judges.

Pedro Antonio Chavez-Cruz, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions 

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an 

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and 

withholding of removal, and reversing the IJ’s decision granting protection under 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAY 30 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-70960 

the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 

1252. We review de novo questions of law. Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 

1042 (9th Cir. 2016). We grant the petition for review and we remand.

In denying Chavez-Cruz’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, the 

agency found Chavez-Cruz failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground. 

When the IJ and BIA issued their decisions in this case, they did not have the 

benefit of this court’s decisions in Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th 

Cir. 2013) (en banc), Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013), Pirir-Boc 

v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2014), and Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125 (9th 

Cir. 2016), or the BIA’s decisions in Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227 

(BIA 2014), and Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208 (BIA 2014).

In reversing the IJ’s grant of CAT protection, the BIA cited its decision in 

Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500 (BIA 2008), for its de novo standard of review of 

the IJ’s decision. In Matter of Z-Z-O-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 586, 589-91 (BIA 2015), 

the BIA overruled Matter of V-K- as to its standard of review of the IJ’s factual 

findings.

Thus, we remand Chavez-Cruz’s asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT 

claims to determine the impact, if any, of these decisions. See INS v. Ventura, 537 

U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).

In light of our disposition, we do not reach Chavez-Cruz’s due process 
3 12-70960 

contentions at this time.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
PUBLIC VERSION
$[*********] [******]

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

INPUT

20.0

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

[******]

[******]

0.05

PUBLIC VERSION
Consistent with USTR's Section 301 notice, OMRON Management Center of America, Inc. requests

confidential treatment for the information designated as business confidential in this submission. Such

information consists of information that would not customarily be released to the public, including

business or trade secrets regarding production costs and processes, data on sales, product characteristics

customers, destinations, and other product, sales, and cost-related business secrets. Business confidential

information has been indicated herein by enclosing it in single brackets (“[ ]”). A public version of these

comments is also being filed with all confidential information removed.

OMRON in the US is the only designer of this product and only supplier of this component.

ACCESSORY SWITCH KNOB,ACSW is a molded plastic switch knob, and is used only for automotive

purposes as a switch for a motor to fold a seat. It is only used for further assembly of components which

go into domestic automobile production. which is specified by auto manufacturer.

This product is not a target of the US Administration's 301 investigation regarding Intellectual Property

concerns. This is not a concern to IP transfer and impressment. This product contains no IP of interest

related to autonomous vehicle production.

The tariff action ultimately poses a risk of significant damage to OMRON, the domestic

automobile industry, and ultimately the US consumer as a

increase in price. Like in the case of similar approvals for vehicle components at the HTS

level, OMRON views this product in the same manner. Immediate movement of production to a US

manufacturer or another country would pose significant re-tooling costs, significant

amounts of time, and approvals pertaining to consumer automobile safety standards are costly and would

take a significant amount of time to

obtain.

OMRON Management Center of America, Inc. believes that CBP can easily exclude the ACCESSORY

SWITCH KNOB,ACSW in question based solely on the product description. The following are draft

CBP exclusion instructions:

"ACCESSORY SWITCH KNOB,ACSW rectangular switch face with a tapered wedge profile; image of

a seat reclining on the front face; Plastic knob for Accessory Switch - Made of plastic resin -PC CLR

(Seat Fold knob). Dimensions are 34.07mm X 17.97mm X 12.00 mm"

This information will be contained on the invoice from the supplier

PUBLIC VERSION
#### ORANGE COUNTY v. DAISY JENKINS et al.

(Filed 27 January, 1931.)

Appeal by O. P. Hinsbaw from *Grady, J.*From ObaNge.

*B. T. Giles for plaintiff.*

*J. B. Carawan for Hinshaw, respondent.*

Per Oubiam.

In view of tbe agreed facts and tbe admissions set out in tbe judgment, we are of opinion that tbe decision in *Orange County v. Andrew Jenhins et ff}., ante,*202, is controlling in tbis ease. Judgment

Affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Vincent Bellini, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.), rendered July 2, 1987, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by refusing to allow his expert psychologist to answer certain hypothetical questions concerning the physical and behavioral effects that cocaine ingestion might have had on the victim on the night of her death. Questions regarding the admissibility and bounds of expert testimony are addressed primarily to the sound discretion of the trial court, and opinion testimony may be properly excluded where it does not rest on facts in evidence or those personally known and testified to by the expert *(see, People v Jones,*73 NY2d 427; *People v Cronin,*60 NY2d 430). In the instant case, the record discloses that many of the hypothetical questions posed by defense counsel assumed facts not in evidence or not established by reliable evidence, while others were not within the psychologist’s field of expertise or were improperly framed *(see, People v Jones,*
      *694
      *supra; People v Cronin, supra; see also, O’Shea v Sarro,*106 AD2d 435). An " ’expert’s opinion is only as sound as the facts upon which it is based’ ” *(People v Jones, supra,*at 430), and we cannot conclude under these circumstances that the court erred in limiting the scope of the defense expert’s testimony.

The defendant’s further contention that the trial court erred in including a duty to retreat instruction in its justification charge is unpreserved for review *(see, People v Leisner,*73 NY2d 140, 147; *People v Hoke,*62 NY2d 1022; *see also, People v McCray,*149 AD2d 736). In any event, the inclusion of the duty to retreat instruction in the court’s charge does not require reversal in the interest of justice since the justification charge as given was not prejudical to the defendant’s position at trial, and since the extreme violence of the defendant’s actions negated any claim that they were reasonably necessary to defend himself *(see, People v Sanchez,*131 AD2d 606; *People v Lucchese,*127 AD2d 699).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find that they are unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or harmless. Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.
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-2018-0025-4336

SPM Flow Control, Inc. DBA Weir SPM:

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
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                      TWEETER HOME ENTERTAINMENT GROUP INC.

    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 Tweeter Home Entertainment Group,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Jeffrey S. Stone, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 of the Company as of March 31, 2004 and
results of operations of the Company for the three and six months ended March
31, 2004.

                                  /s/ Jeffrey S. Stone
                                  --------------------
                                  Jeffrey S. Stone, President and Chief
                                  Executive Officer

                                  May 14, 2004