alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> 
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's 10-Q for the six months ended June 30, 1998 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                            552
<SECURITIES>                                        0         
<RECEIVABLES>                                  14,859
<ALLOWANCES>                                      392
<INVENTORY>                                    11,758
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               27,164 
<PP&E>                                         66,973
<DEPRECIATION>                                 36,802
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 60,468
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          11,651
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           56
<OTHER-SE>                                     45,170
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   60,468
<SALES>                                        42,954 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               42,954
<CGS>                                          39,225         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  39,225 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                8,079
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (4,350)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (1,486)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (2,864)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                  (2,864)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.52)
        


</TABLE>
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-2018-0025-3310

ADH Guardian USA 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
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GUNTER HEIDIG; JANIS HEIDIG, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

 v. 

FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE 

CORPORATION, as Trustee for Securitized 

Trust Freddie Mac Multiclass Certificates, 

Series 3038; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-17377 

D.C. No. 3:16-cv-00576-MMDVPC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 12, 2018**

Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

 

Gunter Heidig and Janis Heidig appeal pro se from the district court’s 

judgment dismissing their action alleging federal and state law claims relating to 

their mortgage. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo

 

* 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

JUN 25 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-17377 

a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrywide Home 

Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Heidigs’ state law claims because 

the Heidigs failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See 

Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings 

are liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to 

state a plausible claim for relief); Wood v. Germann, 331 P.3d 859, 861 (Nev. 

2014) (“[T]he homeowner, who is neither a party to the PSA nor an intended thirdparty beneficiary, lacks standing to challenge the validity of the loan 

assignment.”); Edelstein v. Bank of N.Y Mellon, 286 P.3d 249, 259-60, 262 (Nev. 

2012) (en banc) (explaining that under Nevada law, Mortgage Electronic 

Registration System, Inc. may properly act as beneficiary of a trust deed, 

separating the instruments does not permanently bar foreclosure, and an entity has 

authority to pursue foreclosure when it is entitled to enforce both the deed of trust 

and the note). 

We reject as without merit the Heidigs’ contentions that defendants 

committed fraud on the court, and that defendants are precluded from foreclosing 

due to a past mediation. 

The Heidigs’ request for judicial notice, set forth in their opening brief, is 

denied as unnecessary. 
3 17-17377 

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,2010 (the “Form 10-Q”) of Cardinal Financial Corporation (the “Company”), I,Bernard H. Clineburg, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

(a)           the Form 10-Q fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended; and

 

(b)           the information contained in the Form 10-Qfairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial conditionand results of operations of the Company and its subsidiaries as of, and for,the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.

 

 
| Date:  August 6, 2010 | /s/  Bernard H. Clineburg             |
|----------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                       | Bernard  H. Clineburg                 |
|                       | Chairman  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

October 26, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2236

Machinery Sales Company, Inc. dba U. S. Industrial Machinery:

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


     In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of TechLite, Inc. (the
"Company")  on  Form  10-QSB  for  the  period  ended  September  30,  2003 (the
"Report"),  I,  J.D.  Arvidson,  Chief  Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certify  that  to  my  knowledge:

     (1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d)  of  the  Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.  78m or  78o(d)); and

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

Dated:  November  12,  2003
                                        /s/  J.D.  Arvidson
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        J.D.  Arvidson
                                        Chief  Financial  Officer


     The  above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  1350) and is not being filed as part of
the  Form  10-QSB  or  as  a  separate  disclosure  document.









                                                                    Exhibit 32.1
                                                                Page 1 of 1 Page
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
              ----------------------------------------------------


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 33-
70478) on Form S-8 and (No.  333-12893) on Form S-3 of Prime  Medical  Services,
Inc. of our report dated February 21, 1997, relating to the consolidated balance
sheets of Prime Medical Services,  Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996
and 1995,  and the  related  consolidated  statements  of income,  stockholders'
equity,  and cash  flows for each of the years in the  three-year  period  ended
December 31, 1996, and the related financial  statement  schedule,  which report
appears in the Annual  Report on Form 10-K of Prime Medical  Services,  Inc. for
the year ended December 31, 1996.



/s/ KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP

Austin, Texas
March 27, 1997
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Aaron Walker, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Ford,*66 NY2d 428, 437), was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find defendant guilty of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [4]; § 20.00) and robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [1]; § 20.00; *see, People v Bartlett,*115 AD2d 608, *Iv denied*67 NY2d 880; *People v Parker,*97 AD2d 943). From our review of the record, we also conclude that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495). (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Celli, J.—robbery, first degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Green, Lawton, Davis and Lowery, JJ.
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 21, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 14935]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6839]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP91-203-000, et al. (Phase II)]

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co.; Notice of Informal Settlement 
Conference

March 16, 1995.
    Take notice that an informal settlement conference will be convened 
in this proceeding on Wednesday, March 22, 1995, at 2:00 p.m., at the 
offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 810 First Street 
NE., Washington, DC, for the purpose of exploring the possible 
settlement of the above-referenced docket.
    Any party, as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(c), or any participant as 
defined in 18 CFR 385.102(b), is invited to attend. Persons wishing to 
become a party must move to intervene and receive intervenor status 
pursuant to the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 385.214).
    For additional information, please contact Dennis H. Melvin (202) 
208-0042 or Donald Williams (202) 208-0743.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-6839 Filed 3-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1



# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted July 2, 201 4 *

Decided July 3, 2014



### Before

R ICHARD A. P OSNER

, Circuit Judge

F RANK H. E ASTERBROOK

, Circuit Judge

I LANA D IAMOND R OVNER

, Circuit Judge

No

. 14

- 1148

U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA

, Plaintiff

- Appellee

,

v.

K ARL V. F ORT

, Defendant

- Appellant

. Appeal from the United

States District Court for

the Northern District of

Illinois

, Western Division.

No. 93 CR 20024

- 1 Philip G. Reinhard

, Judge

.

Order

After the Sentencing Commission made its latest changes to the crack

cocaine guideline retroactive (see Amendment 750), Karl Fort asked the district court to reduce his sentence of life imprisonment. The court denied his motion, observing that Amendment 75 0 does not change his range and that he is therefore ineligible for a lower sentence. The range for someone who distributes 8.4 kilograms of crack (or more) was not reduced by Amendment 750, and the

* This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel u nder Operating Procedure 6(b). After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f)No. 14

- 1148 Page 2

district court had found at Fort’s sentencing that he was responsible for at least 9.5 kilograms.

Fort’s appeal relies on the same argument he presented in 2009, after the district court denied his motion under an earlier change to the crack guideline.

Fort maintains that the district court erred at his sentencing in 1994 when concluding that he is culpable for 9.5 kilograms of cocaine base. See United States

v. Edwards , 105 F.3d 1179 (7th Cir. 1997), affirmed, 523 U.S. 511 (1998). We held in 2009 that Fort's argument is legally deficient, because 18 U.S. C. §3582(c)(2),

which authorizes sentence reductions under retroactive reductions to the Guidelines, does not require what amounts to a full resentencing. United States v.

Fort , No. 09

- 1097 (7th Cir. July 13, 2009) (nonprecedential disposition). The Suprem e Court reached the same conclusion in Dillon v. United States , 560 U.S. 817 (2010). The district court uses the calculations of the original sentencing except for the changed guideline range. See United States v. Wren , 706 F.3d 861 (7th Cir. 2013). That’s exactly what the judge did here. Fort’s argument therefore

fares no better in 2014 than it did in 2009.

A FFIRMED
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-2018-0025-2993

Northern Tool & Equipment:

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
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed 

October 11, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-22-00656-CV

IN RE STEVEN HOTZE M.D., Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

295th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2021-18494

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On September 9, 2022, relator Steven Hotze M.D. filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. 

P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this Court to compel the Honorable Donna Roth, 

presiding judge of the 295th District Court of Harris County, to withdraw an order 

granting a motion to compel net worth discovery from Steven Hotze and issue a 

mandate upholding his objections to the discovery request.
2

Relator has not established that he is entitled to mandamus relief. 

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Bourliot, Zimmerer, and Poissant.
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-2018-0025-4658

Seaboard International, 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 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
#### SOUTHWESTERN BELL MEDIA, Respondent, v. Willie COLLINS, d/b/a Little Wills Auto Salvage, Appellant.

No. WD 41681.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Dec. 26, 1989.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 30, 1990.

Richard L. Colbert, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jill K. Shipman, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before LOWENSTEIN, P.J., and KENNEDY and GAITAN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal by defendant from money judgment in favor of plaintiff on petition on account.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
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-2018-0025-4648

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