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

August 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4529

PG 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 did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 99.2

                            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 September 30, 2002 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
November 13, 2002
DEARBORN BANCORP, INC. 
FORM 10-K (continued)
    
    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
   (i)
    
    The Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and(ii)
    
    The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
  /s/ Michael J. RossMichael J. RossPresident and Chief Executive Officer,
Dearborn Bancorp, Inc.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 57 (Friday, March 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15606-15607]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7289]



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

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES


Meeting; Arts in Education Advisory Panel

    Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Public Law 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting 
of the Arts in Education Advisory Panel (Arts Plus Section) to the 
National Council on the Arts will be held on April 10-14, 1995. The 
panel will meet from 10:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on April 10; from 9:00 
a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on April 11; from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on April 12; 
and from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on April 13. This meeting will be held 
in Room 730, at the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20506.
    A portion of this meeting will be open to the public on April 13 
from 3:15 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. for a policy discussion including a 
discussion of the FY 96 and 97 Arts Plus guidelines.
    The remaining portions of this meeting from 10:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 
on April 10; from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on April 11; from 9:00 a.m. to 
2:00 p.m. on April 12; and from 8:30 a.m. to 3:15 [[Page 15607]] p.m. 
on April 13 are for the purpose of panel review, discussion, 
evaluation, and recommendation on applications for financial assistance 
under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 
1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the 
agency by grant applicants. In accordance with the determination of the 
Chairman of February 8, 1994, these sessions will be closed to the 
public pursuant to subsection (c) (4), (6), and 9(B) of section 552b of 
Title 5, United States Code.
    Any person may observe meetings, or portions thereof, of advisory 
panels which are open to the public, and may be permitted to 
participate in the panel's discussions at the discretion of the panel 
chairman and with the approval of the full-time Federal employee in 
attendance.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please 
contact the Office of Special Constituencies, National Endowment for 
the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506, 202/682-
5532, TYY 202/682-5496, at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting.
    Further information with reference to this meeting can be obtained 
from Ms. Yvonne Sabine, Committee Management Officer, National 
Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506, or call 202/682-5788.

    Dated: March 20, 1995.
Yvonne M. Sabine,
Director, Office of Council and Panel Operations, National Endowment 
for the Arts.
[FR Doc. 95-7289 Filed 3-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-M
| 1)   | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;  and |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2)   | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:           July      31, 2009 |                                  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                                                                                      | /s/  William      L. Hodges |
|                                                                                      | William      L. Hodges                |
|                                                                                      | Chief      Financial Officer          |

----
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

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 June 30, 2002 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 June 30, 2002 and
results of operations of the Company for the three and nine months ended June
30, 2002.

| |  |                                                                         |  |                     
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------
| |  | By:                                                                     |  | /s/ Jeffrey S. Stone
| |  |                                                                         |  |                     
| |  | Jeffrey S. Stone, President and Chief Executive Officer 
August 8, 2002
Exhibit No. 32.1


Truewest Corporation


File No.  33-56574


Form 10-K


September 30, 2011





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 Annual Report of Truewest Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended September 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Glenn A. Little, Chief Executive and 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 results of operations of the Company.








Date: January 13, 2012
By:
/s/ Glenn A. LittleGlenn A. LittleChief Executive Officer andChief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Truewest Corporation and will be retained by Truewest Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
1Pursuant 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-60247

USDC No. 5:02-CV-57-BrS

Summary Calendar

 

THOMAS A. TALARICO,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

KHURSHID Z. YUSUFF, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

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

September 27, 2002

Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Thomas A. Talarico, federal prisoner #15386-076, has filed a

motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal

following the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition which

challenged his guilty-plea conviction for possession with the

intent to distribute methamphetamine and using and carrying a

firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking crime. 

Talarico has not demonstrated that he is financially
entitled to proceed IFP or that he will raise a nonfrivolous

issue on appeal. See Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th

Cir. 1982); FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(1). Therefore, Talarico’s IFP

motion is DENIED. 

Because Talarico’s appeal presents no nonfrivolous issues,

it is dismissed as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,

220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Talarico is cautioned that

any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the

imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Talarico is further

cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do

not raise arguments that are frivolous. 

MOTION TO PROCEED IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS;

SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
EX-10.3






Exhibit 10.3




SECOND AMENDMENT TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




This Second Amendment (“Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement dated effective October
1, 2007 and subsequently amended effective January 14, 2009 (“Agreement”) by and between The Scotts
Company, LLC (“Company”) and Barry Sanders (“Executive”) is effective as of this 27th
day of June, 2011.



RECITALS




WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive previously entered into the Agreement;



WHEREAS, the current term of the Agreement extends through September 30, 2011; and



WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive each desire to amend the Agreement to extend and fix
the term of the Agreement to end on November 4, 2011.



AMENDMENT




NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual covenants and
agreements of the parties set forth in this Agreement, and of other good and valuable consideration
the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be
legally bound, agree as follows:




	 	1.	 	Article 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended by inserting the following at the
end thereof:





The term of the Agreement shall be extended and fixed through November 4, 2011,
and the Agreement will terminate in accordance with its terms at the end of the
day on November 4, 2011.




	 	2.	 	Except as modified by this Amendment, all the terms and provisions of the
Agreement as in effect immediately prior to the Amendment shall continue in full force
and effect.






	 	3.	 	Both parties acknowledge and agree that this Amendment shall not be construed
for any purpose as a “notice not to renew or extend” the Agreement.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by a duly authorized
officer and the Executive has executed this Amendment, each effective as of the date first set
forth above.



	 	 	 
	COMPANY

  

	 	EXECUTIVE



	The Scotts Company, LLC

	 	/s/ Barry W. Sanders
	
 
	 	 
	
 
	 	Barry Sanders
	By: /s/ Denise Stump

	 	

	 

	 	

	Its: EVP, Global HR
OS-I/-O~ 3 -{!/_ 

RECEXVED 

court of Appeals 

AUG 2 3 Z013 

Lisa Matz 

Clerk, Sth District 

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

OF TEXAS 

NOS. PD-1626-12 & 1627-12 

MARCUS JAMERSON, Appellant 

v. 

STATE OF TEXAS 

ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW 

FROM THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS 

DALLAS COUNTY 

Per curiam. 

OPINION 

Appellant was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery and sentenced to 32 

years in prison. He appealed, arguing that he had been denied his right to confrontation when 

the technical reviewer, rather than the analyst who performed his DNA test, testified at trial 

about the test results. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, concluding that the 
JAMERSON- 2 

technical reviewer's testimony did not violate the Confrontation Clause. Jamerson v. State, 

l,•;l_ 

383 S.W.3d 309 (Tex. App.- Dallas 2012). 

Appellant has filed a petition for discretionary review of this decision. We recently 

addressed this issue in Burch v. State, No. PD-0943-12, 2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 945 

(Tex. Crim. App. June 26, 2013). In Burch, we held that the Confrontation Clause was 

violated by the admission of a drug analysis when the reviewing analyst, rather than the 

testing analyst, testified at trial. In that case, the person who testified did not participate in 

the testing or witness the tests being performed. 

The Court of Appeals in the instant case did not have the benefit of our opinion in 

Burch. Accordingly, we grant Appellant's petition for discretionary review, vacate the 

judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand this case to the Court of Appeals in light of 

Burch. 

DATE DELIVERED: August21, 2013 

PUBLISH
#### Advertising To Women, Inc., Appellant, v Melvyn Kaufman, Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered June 21, 1989, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion to compel plaintiff’s compliance with a prior discovery request, is unanimously affirmed, with costs.

This is an action by plaintiff tenant for breach of a lease agreement alleging overcharging and overpayment for electrical charges. Defendant’s opposing papers set forth the relevant lease provisions allegedly justifying the additional electrical charges. Such factors as increased usage, the extension of office hours to weekends, and overtime have yet to be determined. Thus, plaintiff failed to tender sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issue of fact and the motion for summary judgment was properly denied. *(Matter of Universal Underwriters Group [Zeitlin],*157 AD2d 544 [1st Dept 1990]; *Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center,*64 NY2d 851 [1985].) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Asch, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-50708 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus BYRON LAMONTE MCCUTCHEON, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-95-CA-228

- - - - - - - - - - February 23, 1998 Before WIENER, BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Byron Lamonte McCutcheon, federal prisoner # 60246-080, requests permission to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. McCutcheon contends that counsel on direct appeal provided ineffective assistance by failing to challenge the district court’s estimate of the drug quantity attributable to McCutcheon, the district court’s alleged failure to make findings in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 32, and the district court’sNo. 96-50708 -2- determination of McCutcheon’s sentence by using crack cocaine rather than powder cocaine. McCutcheon also contends that the district court erred in determining that his ineffective assistance claims were procedurally barred and in dismissing his § 2255 motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the record, the district court's thorough opinion, and McCutcheon’s brief and find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. See McCutcheon v. United States , No. W-95-Ca-228 (W.D. Tex. Jul. 2, 1996). McCutcheon abandoned any challenge to his claim that his conviction was barred by double jeopardy and to the district court’s determination that his sentencing issues were procedurally barred by failing to assert and brief the issues in this court. See Hobbs v. Blackburn , 752 F.2d 1079, 1083 (5th Cir. 1985)(errors not raised and not briefed on appeal are abandoned). As an appeal would have no merit, the motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED. See Carson v. Polley , 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). The appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
IFP DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Boyd, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Delin, J.), rendered August 18, 1987, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence adduced was legally insufficient to establish that the threat of the immediate use of force employed to prevent or overcome resistance to *545the retention of the property stolen occurred "immediately after the taking” (Penal Law § 160.00 [1]) is without merit *(see, People v Johnstone,*131 AD2d 782; *People v Brock,*125 AD2d 401; *People v Dekle,*83 AD2d 522, *affd*56 NY2d 835). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                      15,986,385
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,965,467
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (339,216)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            27,191,073
<PP&E>                                       5,292,703
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,335,248)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              37,617,852
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,327,875
<BONDS>                                        871,818
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       125,772
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,344,873
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                37,617,852
<SALES>                                     67,242,374
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            67,242,374
<CGS>                                       56,488,737
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               66,210,821
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,335,857
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (339,216)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,148,605
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,009,656)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,009,656)
<DISCONTINUED>                              14,349,233
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,339,577
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.16


</TABLE>
#### Edward RIEFLE, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 63371.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Sept. 14, 1993.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 19, 1993.

Application to Transfer Denied Nov. 23, 1993.

Dave Hemingway, St. Louis, for mov-ant/appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent/respondent.

*384Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 24.-035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no prec-edential value. The parties have been fur'nished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).