alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TERRANCE GAY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-2750

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 5, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Bay County.

James B. Fensom, Judge.

Terrance Gay, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Kristen Bonjour, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

SWANSON, MAKAR, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
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-2018-0025-2138

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
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements File
Nos. 333-11067, 333-15907, 333-17021, 333-23035, 333-37247, 333-37383,
333-41603, 333-58045, 333-68505, 333-76379, 333-76757, 333-82134, 333-82569,
333-84419, 333-88813, 333-88819, and 333-91621 of General Growth Properties,
Inc. on Form S-3 and the Registration Statements File Nos. 33-79372, 333-07241,
333-11237, 333-28449, 333-74461, 333-79737 and 333-105882 of General Growth
Properties, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated March 10, 2004 (which report
expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating
to the change in method of accounting for derivative instruments and hedging
activities in 2001 and the change in accounting for debt extinguishment costs in
2003) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of General Growth Properties,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2003. We also consent to the incorporation
by reference in the Registration Statements listed above of our report dated
March 10, 2004 relating to the financial statement schedule, which appears in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Chicago, Illinois
March 11, 2004
#### ALLIE E. STANCILL v. J. HARVEY STANCILL.

(Filed 4 March, 1931.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Devin, J.,*at January Term, 1931, of Pitt.

No error.

*Julius Brown for plaintiff.*

*John Hill Baylor and H. J. Wellons for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

Tbe plaintiff is tbe widow of Hubert D. Stancill, deceased; tbe defendant is bis brother. Tbe deceased has been a soldier in tbe army of tbe United States, and at tbe time of bis death held an adjusted service certificate of insurance in tbe sum of $1,568, issued by tbe United States Government. Tbe defendant was named as beneficiary. Tbe plaintiff and tbe deceased were married on 14 April, 1930, and bis death occurred in tbe latter part of tbe next month. *802The plaintiff alleged that her husband had substituted her as the beneficiary in lieu of his brother by a letter addressed to the United States Veterans Bureau at Charlotte, and that she was entitled to the amount due on the certificate. . Upon pleadings duly filed issues were framed, in response to which the jury found that the deceased had not written the letter or requested another to write it for him, and, in effect, that the beneficiary had not been changed.

We have examined the plaintiff’s exception and find no error entitling the plaintiff to a new trial.

No error.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4235 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to fix a technical error in the 

definitions. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 17, 2022 

Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. COONS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to fix a technical 

error in the definitions. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONTROLLED SUB4 STANCES ACT. 

5 Section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 

6 U.S.C. 802) is amended— 

7 (1) by redesignating paragraph (58) as para8 graph (59); 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4235 IS

1 (2) by redesignating the second paragraph des2 ignated as paragraph (57) (relating to the definition 

3 of ‘‘serious drug felony’’) as paragraph (58); and 

4 (3) by moving paragraphs (57), (58) (as so re5 designated), and (59) (as so redesignated) 2 ems to 

6 the left. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4677

II-VI 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
VELVA L. PRICE, District Clerk, Travis County Courthouse, Third Floor 

RECEIPT AND EXECUTION OF MANDATE FROM 

THE COURT OF APPEALS 

BY THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT CLERK

Mr. Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk June 19, 2015 

Court of Appeals 

Third District of Texas 

P.O. Box 12547 

Austin, Texas 78711-2547 

Criminal Division 

P.O. Box 679004, 

Austin, Texas, 78767 

Re: No. 03-15-00133-CR

(Trial Court No.D-1-DC-12-201699) 

Styled: JERRY LOUIS ALEXANDER

vs. 

The State of Texas 

Dear Mr. Kyle: 

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 87(b)(1), I hereby forward my acknowledgment 

of the receipt and the execution of the mandate on JUNE 19, 2015 from the Court of Appeals in 

the above cause. The official execution of this mandate is recognized by the Travis County 

Sheriff whereas the capias after mandate, official notice of mandate, or transfer of inmate to 

proper authorities, has been executed and or is in the process of being executed hereby placing 

the defendant within the proper jurisdiction of the trial court. 

Respectfully, 

VELVA L. PRICE

District Clerk 

Travis County, Texas 

By: _________________________________ 

 Deputy,JESSICA CONTRERAS 

C23 - 000001038
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-2018-0025-4915

Arrowhead Electrical Products, Inc:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20. 

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

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

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
fs12011ex10v_climateesco.htm


Exhibit 10.5


 


Letter of Appointment


 


 


February 22, 2011


 


 


Climate ESCO Ltd.


#4-2119 152nd Street


Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V4A 4N7


 


Galaxia Electronics Co. Ltd. ("Company) having its principal place of business at #15, Tech-Center, SKn Technopark 190-1, Sangdaewon-dong, Jungwon-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, Korea 462-721 duly appoints Climate ESCO Ltd. ("Agent") as an Agent of Company to sell products in Canada.


 


Terms and Conditions:


 



	
1.  

	
This letter of appointment is effective from the date of signature on the below.







 



	
2.  

	
Sales Area: Agent shall act as the Agent for the Company within the geographic area of British Columbia, Canada. Sales opportunities in other regions will be approved on a case by case scenario.







 



	
3.  

	
Products: All LED White Solutions. LED Display and Architectural LED Lighting can be approved on a case by case scenario.







 



	
4.  

	
Termination: This agreement can be terminated by either Agent or Company on a 30 day notice.







 


 


 


/s/ I. D. LEE                           


I. D. Lee


Senior Director 


Feb. 22, 2011
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4923

Scosche Industries, Inc:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20. 

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

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

request was denied because the request 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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 61 (Thursday, March 30, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16476-16477]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7797]



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


FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

First Community Corporation, et al.; Formations of; Acquisitions 
by; and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied for the Board's 
approval under section 3 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 
1842) and Sec.  225.14 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.14) to 
become a bank holding company or to acquire a bank or bank holding 
company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications 
are set forth in section 3(c) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
    Each application is available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Once the application has been accepted 
for processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing to the Reserve Bank or to the offices of the Board of 
Governors. Any comment on an application that requests a hearing must 
include a statement of why a written presentation would not suffice in 
lieu of a hearing, identifying specifically any questions of fact that 
are in dispute and summarizing the evidence that would be presented at 
a hearing.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received not later than April 24, 1995.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Lloyd W. Bostian, Jr., Senior 
Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261:
    1. First Community Corporation, Columbia, South Carolina; to become 
a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of 
First Community Bank, N.A., Lexington, South Carolina (in 
organization).
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (James A. Bluemle, Vice 
President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690:
    1. Suburban Illinois Bancorp, Inc., Elmhurst, Illinois; to become a 
bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of 
Suburban Bank of Elmhurst, Elmhurst, Illinois.
    C. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Randall C. Sumner, Vice 
President) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63166:
    1. Mountain View Bancshares, Inc., Mountain View, Arkansas; to 
become a [[Page 16477]] bank holding company by acquiring at least 80 
percent of the voting shares of Bank of Mountain View, Mountain View, 
Arkansas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 24, 
1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-7797 Filed 3-29-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Samuel Castro, Appellant.

Judgment of Supreme Court, New York County (Eugene Nardelli, J., at hearing, plea and sentence), rendered December 17, 1987, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and sentencing him to a term of imprisonment of from five years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The police received information from a confidential informant that he had negotiated the transfer of one kilo of cocaine. He had made the arrangement with a woman named Hernandez, who was to arrive from Miami that night at LaGuardia Airport. Officer Delgado, his team and informant went to the airport where the informant identified Hernandez among the passengers disembarking an airliner. She was accompanied by defendant. Delgado observed defendant, while in the baggage claim area, twice run up the stairs for no apparent reason, stop suddenly, turn completely around and look back and forth. Defendant retrieved from the baggage claim area a black and tan folding bag that had been pointed out by Hernandez, and walked out carrying that bag and a *426duffel bag while Hernandez carried other bags. Once on the sidewalk, the police approached them, identified themselves and asked to search their bags. They consented, but repeatedly denied ownership of the black and tan bag even after Delgado noted that it had defendant’s name on it. Upon searching the bag, Delgado found a kilo of cocaine, a .357 magnum and 13 rounds of ammunition.

Hernandez was convicted, upon her plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, which conviction has been affirmed on appeal (162 AD2d 417).

Based on the information provided by the confidential informant, and the officers’ observations of defendant and Hernandez, who were obviously traveling together, including defendant’s exercise of control over a bag pointed out by Hernandez, the police had reasonable suspicion to stop and detain defendant *(People v De Bour,*40 NY2d 210).

Defendant’s denial of ownership of the black and tan bag was an effective abandonment of that property *(People v D’Ambrosio,*28 AD2d 1130), leaving him without a possessory interest or expectation of privacy in its contents. Such property is not subject to the constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the search, therefore, was proper.

We find that defendant’s sentence was not excessive or unduly harsh. Further, his sentence was the result of a negotiated plea agreement. " 'Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms’ ” *(People v Rush,*155 AD2d 241, 242). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
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-2018-0025-4350

Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20.

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

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

request was denied because the request 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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
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-2018-0025-4059

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
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D23-415

Lower Tribunal No. CF19-000622-XX

_____________________________

CORDARRALL HALL,

Appellant, 

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County.

Donald G. Jacobsen, Judge.

November 28, 2023

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

TRAVER C.J., and WOZNIAK and MIZE, JJ., concur.

Rachael E. Reese, of O’Brien Hatfield Reese, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and David Campbell, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2275

Quest Technologies dba Crystal Quest:

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