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

September 17, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-5336

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/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September.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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 13, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4013

Duravant LLC and Ohlson Packaging:

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
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-2018-0025-4056

Tianhai Electric North America:

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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2282

Reelcraft Industries:

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
* Pursuant 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. 01-20179

Summary Calendar

 

IRVING DEAN ELLIOT, also known as Al Yasa Muhammad,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL GEERDS, Captain; McCLURE, Assistant Warden;

KITCHEN, Captain; Chaplain E. FARUQ,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CV-1290

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

July 6, 2001

Before JOLLY, DAVIS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Irving Elliot, Texas prisoner # 384725, seeks leave to

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) following the district court’s

dismissal of his civil rights suit and the court’s certification

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that his appeal is not being

taken in good faith. By moving for IFP in this court, Elliot is

challenging the district court’s determination that the appeal is
O R D E R

No. 01-20179

- 2 -

not being taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d

197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). 

Liberally construed, Elliot’s argument is that the district

court should have ordered the production of documents or

conducted an evidentiary hearing to more fully examine Elliot’s

claims before dismissing the complaint. Elliot has not

identified a nonfrivolous issue for appeal, and he has not shown

that the denial of IFP status by the district court was error. 

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983).

Elliot’s appeal lacks arguable merit and is DISMISSED AS

FRIVOLOUS. See id. at 219-20. The dismissal of the appeal

counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The district

court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit also counts as

strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103

F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). Elliot is cautioned that if he

accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed IFP in a civil

action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in

any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious

physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Elliot’s motions for an evidentiary hearing and for the

production of documents are DENIED.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4879 

To amend the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to specify that the trading prohibition for certain Chinese issuers that retain public accounting firms that 

have not been subject to inspection by the Public Company Accounting 

Oversight Board shall apply after 1 year, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 25, 2023 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER (for himself and Mr. SHERMAN) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to specify that 

the trading prohibition for certain Chinese issuers that 

retain public accounting firms that have not been subject 

to inspection by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board shall apply after 1 year, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Holding Chinese List5 ed Companies Accountable Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4879 IH

1 SEC. 2. TRADING PROHIBITION FOR CERTAIN CHINESE 

2 ISSUERS. 

3 Section 104(i)(3) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 

4 (15 U.S.C. 7214(i)(3)) is amended— 

5 (1) in the paragraph heading, by inserting ‘‘(OR

6 1 YEAR IN THE CASE OF A CHINESE COMPANY)’’ 

7 after ‘‘NON-INSPECTIONS’’; and 

8 (2) in subparagraph (A), in the matter pre9 ceding clause (i), by inserting ‘‘(or 1 non-inspection 

10 year in the case of a covered issuer organized under 

11 the laws of the People’s Republic of China)’’ after 

12 ‘‘years’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
##### 



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.
#### R. T. HEATON et al. v. L. L. HEATON et al.

(Filed 9 January, 1929.)

Mortgages — Registration and Indexing — Lien and Priority — Subsequent Purchasers.

The proper indexing of a mortgage upon lands is an essential part of its registration, and where the husband and wife make a mortgage on her lands which is only indexed by the register of deeds in the name of the husband, it is not good as against a subsequent purchaser for value by deed from the husband and wife that had been properly indexed and registered. 0. S., 3561.

Civil action, before *Moore, J.,*at November Term, 1928, of CHEROKEE.

Mande K. Heaton was tbe owner of tbe land in controversy. On 19 January, 1924, Maude K. Heaton and ber husband, L. L. Heaton, executed and delivered a mortgage to tbe plaintiffs upon said land to secure a note in tbe sum of $1,000, executed by L. L. Heaton to tbe Bank of Murpby, wbicb said note bad been endorsed by plaintiffs as accommodation endorser. Tbe instrument was registered on 28 April, 1924, but was indexed and cross-indexed in tbe name of L. L. Heaton only. Tbe name of Maude K. Heaton, tbe owner of said property, did not appear in tbe index or cross-index. Thereafter, on 26 September, 1924, L. L. Heaton and Maude K. Heaton, bis wife, conveyed tbe land to tbe defendant, Mattie A. Taylor, for full consideration. Tbe deed to Mattie A. Taylor was duly recorded on 27 September, 1924. Tbe plaintiffs, having been compelled to pay tbe note, brought this suit against L. L. Heaton and bis wife, Maude K. Heaton, and Mattie A. Taylor for tbe purpose of selling tbe land and applying tbe proceeds to tbe payment of said note.

A jury trial having been waived, tbe trial jud^e, upon tbe foregoing facts, decreed that tbe plaintiffs bad no lien on said property, and that tbe defendant, Mattie A. Taylor, was the owner thereof, freed from tbe alleged claim of defendant.

*D. L. Tillett and Moody & Moody for plaintiff.*

*D. Witherspoon for Mattie A. Taylor.*

BeogdeN, J.

Tbe indexing and tbe cross-indexing of deeds, mortgages and deeds of trust is an essential part of tbe registration thereof. Therefore a deed, mortgage, or deed of trust not properly indexed and cross-indexed is not properly registered, and registration is necessary to *476defeat tbe rights of subsequent purchasers for value. N. C. Code 1927, sec. 3561, requires that “the naines of the parties to all liens, etc.,” shall be shown on the index. The indexing of the instrument in controversy did not comply with the statute; hence the ruling of the trial judge was correct. *Clement v. Harrison,*193 N. C., 825, 138 S. E., 308.

Affirmed.
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-2018-0025-2308

General Tools:

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
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

I, Dean M.Leavitt, certify that:

1.  I havereviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of U.S. Wireless Data, Inc.;

2.Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4. Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

(a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.

Date: October28, 2003

/s/ Dean M.Leavitt          

Dean M. Leavitt
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-2018-0025-3978

Academy, Ltd:

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
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 48 

To provide for the hiring of 200 additional Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms and Explosives agents and investigators to enforce gun laws. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2023 

Ms. JACKSON LEE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide for the hiring of 200 additional Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents and investigators to enforce gun laws. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Gun Violence Reduc5 tion Resources Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 The Congress finds as follows: 

8 (1) On average, more than 100,000 people in 

9 the United States are shot in murders, assaults, and 

10 other crimes and more than 32,000 people die from 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 48 IH

1 gun violence annually, including 2,677 children 

2 under 18 years of age. 

3 (2) Many of these crimes were committed by 

4 people who never should have been able to purchase 

5 a gun. 

6 (3) Each year hundreds of law enforcement of7 ficers lose their lives to gun violence, having been 

8 shot to death while protecting their communities. 

9 (4) Millions of guns are sold every year in ‘‘no 

10 questions asked’’ transactions and experts estimate 

11 that 40 percent of guns now sold in the United 

12 States are sold without a background check of the 

13 purchaser. 

14 SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, 

15 FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES AGENTS AND IN16 VESTIGATORS. 

17 The Attorney General may hire 200 individuals to 

18 serve as agents and investigators for the Bureau of Alco19 hol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, in addition to any 

20 individuals so serving as of the date of the enactment of 

21 this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS