alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

April 12, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3756

ECM Industries LLC: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_04.15.19.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

November 9, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00801

- CR

Helder Jesus Lopez CRISTOMO

, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Cou rt, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR10362W Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states that “this criminal case is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record contains a written plea bargain, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant; therefore, the trial court’s certification accurately reflects that the criminal case is a plea

- bargain case. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2(a)(2). Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Proc edure provides, “The appeal must be dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has a right of appeal has not been made part of the record

under these rules.” T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2(d). It is therefore ORDERED that this appeal will be dismissed p ursuant to rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure unless appellant causes an amended trial court certification to be filed by December 7, 2018 , showing appellant has the right of appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2(d); 37.1; see also Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Daniels v. State ,110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, no pet.). All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending our resolution of the

certification issue.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 9th day of November, 2018

.

____________________________ _______ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
chyu_ex102.htm


EXHIBIT 10.2


 


SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT


 


Reference is hereby made to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of June 1, 2011 (the “Agreement”), among China Youth Media, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (“CHYU”), China Youth Media Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of CHYU (“Merger Sub”), and Midwest Energy Emissions Corp., a North Dakota corporation (the “Company”).  CHYU, Merger Sub and the Company are collectively referred to herein as the “Parties.”


 


Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained therein, the Parties hereby agree that all past and present directors and officers of CHYU are entitled to rely upon the representations, warranties and covenants of the Parties contained in the Agreement, including but not limited to the representations, warranties and covenants with respect to Indemnification and Directors and Officers Insurance, and the benefits conferred therein and thereby, and all such past and present directors and officers of CHYU shall be deemed third party beneficiaries of the Agreement.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have duly executed this Agreement as of the 21st day of June, 2011.


 


 




	 	
CHINA YOUTH MEDIA, INC.,


A DELAWARE CORPORATION

	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	
/S/Jay Rifkin

	 
	 	Name: 

Title: 	
Jay Rifkin


Chief Executive Officer


 

	 
	 	
CHINA YOUTH MEDIA MERGER SUB, INC.,


A DELAWARE CORPORATION


 

	 
	 	By:	

/S/Jay Rifkin



	 
	 	Name: 

Title:	
Jay Rifkin


Chief Executive Officer

	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	

MIDWEST ENERGY EMISSIONS CORP.,


A NORTH DAKOTA CORPORATION


 



	 
	 	By:	/S/Richard MacPherson	 
	 	Name: 

Title:	
Richard MacPherson


Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM UNAUDITED
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE-MONTH  PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001060205
<NAME>                        PLAYSTAR WYOMING HOLDING CORP.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     USD
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1998                
<PERIOD-END>                   DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                         1
<CASH>                          1,267,220
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                1,400,195
<PP&E>                            286,361
<DEPRECIATION>                     32,666
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  1,774,243
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             227,420
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                            2,859
<OTHER-SE>                      1,543,964
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    1,774,243
<SALES>                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  108,102
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  721,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                (1,167,275)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            (1,167,275)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                   (1,167,275)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (.02)
        

</TABLE>
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 26, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-4340

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 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 21.1


                         Subsidiaries of the Company.
<PAGE>

                                 Exhibit 21.1
                                 ------------
                                 Subsidiaries
                                 ------------


Subsidiary's                                    Jurisdiction of
Corporate Name                                  Incorporation
--------------                                  ---------------

DHS Management Services, Inc.                   Texas

Mobile Diagnostic Systems, Inc.                 Texas

Heart Institute of Tulsa, Inc.                  Oklahoma

Specialized Imaging Services Inc.               Illinois

Alpha Scanning Service, Inc.                    Louisiana

Diagnostic Health Services
  de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.                       Mexico

HomeCare International
  de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.                       Mexico

HomeCare International, Inc.                    Texas

Mobile Diagnostic Imaging, Inc.                 Delaware

St. Louis Mobile Ultrasound, Inc.               Delaware

HDI Acquisition Corp.                           Texas

Advanced Diagnostic Imaging, Inc.               Texas

Pediatric Echocardiographic
  Diagnostic Imaging, Inc.                      Texas

Ultrasound Diagnostic Services, Ltd.            Arizona

SoCal Diagnostic Services, Inc.                 California
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7524

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHARLES FRANKLIN BROWN,

Defendant – Appellant.

.

No. 16-7525

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHARLES FRANKLIN BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski, District Judge. (5:13-cr-00017-MFU-RSB-1; 5:15-

cv-80868-MFU-RSB; 5:13-cr-00030-MFU-RSB-5; 5:15-cv-80869-MFU-RSB)

Submitted: March 31, 2017 Decided: April 11, 2017
2

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Franklin Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia; Craig Jon Jacobsen, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Roanoke, Virginia; Drew Smith, Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated cases, Charles Franklin Brown seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When 

the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the 

constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the 

dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of 

the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brown has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss these consolidated appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Certification

I, Timothy W. Miciotto, the Chief Financial Officer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of
Global Industries, Ltd.;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this
annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
annual report;



4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a.    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,  to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
annual report is being prepared; and

b.    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this
annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c.    disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a.    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b.    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over financial reporting.



March 15, 2004



|                                              
|----------------------------------------------
|/S/ TIMOTHY W. MICIOTTO                       
|Timothy W. Miciotto                           
|Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
|(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### Max L. ALEXANDER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 41099.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 20, 1989.

Joseph H. Locascio, Sp. Public Defender, Mark R. Bollinger, Asst. Sp. Public Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Christopher M. Kehr, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SHANGLER, P.J., and MANFORD and LOWENSTEIN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from denial of Rule 27.26 (now repealed) motion for post-conviction relief.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 46 (Thursday, March 9, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 13007]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5980]





                Sunshine Act Meetings



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 46 / Thursday, March 9, 1995 / 
Sunshines Act Meetings
[[Page 13007]]


MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Friday, March 17, 1995.

PLACE: Francis Perkins Hearing Room, Ninth Floor, 1120 Vermont Avenue, 
N.W., Washington, D.C., 20419.

STATUS: The meeting will be open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Establishment of task force to recommend 
changes in the structure of the Board that will allow the Board to meet 
budgetary requirements of National Performance Review II through fiscal 
year 2000.

CONTACT PERSON FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Robert E. Taylor, Clerk of 
the Board, (202) 653-7200.

    Dated: March 7, 1995.
Robert E. Taylor,

Clerk of the Board.

[FR Doc. 95-5980 Filed 3-7-95; 3:17 pm]

BILLING CODE 7400-01-M
#### In re WILL OF MARY E. BELL.

(Filed 13 October, 1926.)

Appeal by caveators from *Devin, J.,*at June Term, 1926, of Car-teret.

Issue of *devisavit vel non,*raised by a caveat-to the will of Mary E. Bell. Alleged mental incapacity and undue influence are the grounds upon which the caveat is based.

The verdict establishes: (1) That the paper-writing propounded was duly executed in manner and form as prescribed by statute for the execution of wills; (2) that Mary E. Bell had sufficient mental capacity *814to execute tbe same as ber last will and testament; (3) tbat its execution was not procured by undue influence; and (4) tbat tbe paper-writing propounded, and every part thereof, is tbe last will and testament of Mary E. Bell, deceased.

From a judgment on tbe verdict in favor of propounder, tbe cave-ators appeal, assigning errors.

*Ward & Ward, J. F. Duncan and Qowper, Whitaker & Allen for ,icaveators.*

*D. L. Ward, M. Leslie Davis and D. L. Ward, Jr., for propounder.*

Per Curiam.

A careful perusal of tbe record leaves us witb tbe impression tbat tbe matter bas been beard and determined substantially in accord witb tbe principles of law applicable, and tbat tbe validity of tbe trial should be sustained. All questions in dispute have been settled by tbe verdict, and no action or ruling on the- part of tbe trial court bas been discovered by us which we apprehend should be held for reversible error.

Tbe exceptions relating to tbe admission and exclusion of evidence, and those directed to tbe charge, must all be resolved in favor of tbe validity of tbe trial. No new question of law or one not heretofore settled by our decisions is presented by tbe appeal. Tbe verdict and judgment will be up held.

No error.
Exhibit 32.1



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, 2003 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:              
|                 
|                 
|November 12, 2003



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Killbuck Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by Killbuck Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3952

Cummins Allison Corp:

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
EXHIBIT 32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certification  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of China Aoxing Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. (the Company) certifies that: 1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period  ended December 31, 2008 (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.  February 17, 2009 /s/ Juan Yue Han Juan Yue Han, Chief Executive Officer  February 17, 2009 /s/ Hongyue Hao Hongyue Hao, Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18
U.S.C.SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of
Shoe Carnival, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending February
2, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I W. Kerry Jackson, Executive Vice President 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:   April
      17, 2008 | By:                                | /s/ W. Kerry
      Jackson | 
|---------------------------- | ---------------------------------- | -------------------------- | 
|                             | W. Kerry Jackson                   |                           
|                             | Executive Vice President
      and |                           
|                             | Chief Financial
      Officer      |                           

---