alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wade Chasten, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.), both rendered June 16, 1988, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree under indictment No. 6028/86, and tampering with a witness in the third degree under indictment No. 9140/86, upon jury verdicts, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not deprived of a fair trial by the court’s questioning of the witnesses. To the extent that the alleged errors are preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]), we find that the trial court’s inquiries were necessary "to clarify the issues and to facilitate the orderly and expeditious progress of the proceedings” *(People v Vargas,*150 AD2d 513; *see, People v De Jesus,*42 NY2d 519, 523; *People v Sykes,*151 AD2d 523, 524). Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

I, David R. Callen, hereby certify that the June 30, 2009 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A as filed by Ethan Allen Interiors Inc. (the “Company”), which contains the Company’s financial statements, 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 that information contained in such Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ David R. Callen   |   | Vice President, Finance and Treasurer |
|-----------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
| (David R. Callen)     |   |                                  |
|                  |   |                                  |
|                  |   |                                  |
| August  27, 2009 |   |                                  |

 

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 7, 2016

t1130 

# Order

Clerk December 7, 2016

153586

SHAWN M. WILLIAMSON,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 153586

COA: 330261

MCAC: 12

- 000131

GENERAL MOTORS, LLC,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 31, 2016 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuad ed

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4422

CW Bearing USA, Inc:

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/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.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 the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

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
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO RULES 13a-14(A) AND 15d-14(A)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of Solar
Enertech Corp. for the quarter ended June 30, 2007.2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not
contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial
statements, and other financial information included in this report,
fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The small business issuers other
certifying officer(s) 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 small business
issuer 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 small
business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness
of the small business issuers disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this 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; andc.
    
    Disclosed in this report
any change in the small business issuers internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small
business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the small business issuers
internal control over financial reporting; and




---



##### 



5.
    
    The small business issuers other
certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small
business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small
business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):
 a.
    
    All significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which
are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business
issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not
material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the small business issuers
internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: September 20, 2007
    
    By: /s/ Ming Wai Anthea ChungMing Wai Anthea ChungChief Financial Officer
CERTIFICATION OF CFO PURSUANT TO
                                18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                                AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                   SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Global Industries,
Ltd. ("Global") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31,
2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"SEC") on March 21, 2003 (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS 1350 as adopted pursuant to
SS 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge based
upon a review of the Report, that:


(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) 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 Global as of the dates and for periods
presented as required by such Report.




/S/ TIMOTHY W. MICIOTTO
------------------------
Timothy W. Miciotto
Chief Financial Officer
March 21, 2003


This certification is provided pursuant to SS 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent
required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by
Global or the certifying officer for purposes of SS 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.


A signed original of this written statement required by
SS 906 has been provided to Global Industries, Ltd. and will be
retained by it and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 26, 2018

No. 04-18-00324-CV

MADHAVAN A. PISHARODI, M.D., P.A.,

Appellant

v.

UNITED BIOLOGICS, L.L.C,

Appellee

From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CI06067

Honorable Rosie Alvarado, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The clerk’s record was due June 19, 2018, but was not filed. On June 22, 2018, the clerk 

filed a notification of late record stating the clerk’s record was not filed because appellant has not 

paid or made arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee to prepare the record and appellant is not 

entitled to the record without paying the fee. 

Accordingly, we ORDER appellant to provide written proof to this court on or before 

July 6, 2018 that either (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements satisfactory to the clerk 

have been made to pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to the clerk’s record without 

prepayment of the clerk’s fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1, 35.3(a). If appellant fails to file such 

proof within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. R.

37.3(b).

We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on all counsel, the court 

reporter, and the district clerk. 

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 26th day of June, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
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-2018-0025-1961

Brooks Instrument LLC:

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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeffrey McElveen, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berkowitz, J.), rendered March 18, 1987, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, attempted manslaughter in the first degree, assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We agree with the defendant’s contention that the prosecutor improperly elicited from Detective DeRosalia, over defense counsel’s objection, an out-of-court statement made to the detective by a witness who did not testify at the trial *(see, People v Melendez,*55 NY2d 445, 452). Although defense counsel had previously elicited a portion of the statement during his cross-examination of the detective, the so-called "opening of the door” theory is not applicable where, as here, the remainder of the statement did not explain or clarify *627matters already put in issue by the cross-examination *(see, People v Melendez, supra,*at 451-452; *People v Keeling,*141 AD2d 668, 669). Nevertheless, given the overwhelming proof of the defendant’s guilt, the admission of this testimony was harmless *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230). Moreover, the testimony was cumulative as it was consistent with the testimony of the four eyewitnesses who testified for the prosecution.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
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-2018-0025-2519

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 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,

Stephen P. Vaughn
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 4, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 17056]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8194]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
A-588-823


Professional Electric Cutting Tools From Japan; Termination of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce

ACTION: Notice of Termination of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review.

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

SUMMARY: On August 24, 1994, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published in the Federal Register (55 FR 39033) the notice 
of initiation of the administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on professional electric cutting tools from Japan. This review 
has now been terminated as a result of the withdrawal by the petitioner 
of its request for review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 4, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Dulberger or Maureen Flannery, 
Office of Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-
4733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 29, 1994, Black and Decker, Inc., a U.S. manufacturer of 
professional electric cutting tools, as an interested party, requested 
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on professional 
electric cutting tools from Japan, for the period January 4, 1993 
through June 30, 1994, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.22(a)(2) (1994). On 
August 24, 1994, the Department published in the Federal Register (59 
FR 43537) the notice of initiation of that administrative review.
    Black and Decker timely withdrew its request for review on October 
24, 1994, pursuant to 19 CFR 353.22(a)(5). As a result, the Department 
has terminated the review.
    This notice is published in accordance with section 751 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1675) and 19 CFR 
353.22(a)(5).
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.
[FR Doc. 95-8194 Filed 4-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Virgilio E. GARCELL, Appellant.

No. WD 49889.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Jan. 23, 1996.

Rose M. Wibbenmeyer, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David R. Truman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before ELLIS, P.J., and HANNA and SPINDEN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mr. Garcell appeals from his conviction, by a jury, of the sale of a controlled substance, § 195.211, RSMo 1994, and his sentence of fifteen years imprisonment as a prior and persistent offender, §§ 558.016, 558.019 and 557.036.4, RSMo 1994. Affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
Exhibit 99

                    INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT
                    -------------------------------

Board of Directors
Killbuck Bancshares, Inc.

We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Killbuck
Bancshares, Inc. and subsidiary as of June 30, 2000 and the related
consolidated statements of income and cash flows for the six-month and three
month periods ended June 30, 2000 and 1999 and the consolidated statement of
changes in shareholders' equity for the six month period ended June 30, 2000.
These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A review of interim
financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures
to financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial
and accounting matters.  It is substantially less in scope than an audit
conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the
objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial
statements taken as a whole.  Accordingly we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that
should be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 1999, and the
related consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders' equity and
cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein); and in our report
dated January 28, 2000 we expressed an unqualified opinion on those
consolidated financial statements.  In our opinion, the information set forth
in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 1999, is
fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the consolidated
balance sheet from which it has been derived.

/s/S.R. SNODGRASS, A.C.


Steubenville, Ohio
July 18, 2000

S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.
626 North Fourth Street
Steubenville, Ohio 43952-1982
Phone: 740-282-2771
Facsimile: 740-282-1606
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 08-1569

PAUL SIMMONS; PEDRO VALENTIN; DENNIS BELDOTTI,

Plaintiffs, Appellees/Cross-Appellants,

v.

WILLIAM FRANCIS GALVIN,

in his capacity as Secretary of the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts,

Defendant, Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on July 31, 2009, is amended

as follows:

On p.99, line 18: Replace "supra, n.19);" with "supra, n.43);"
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Killbuck Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Luther E. Proper, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                        
|------------------------
|By: /s/ Luther E. Proper
|                        
|Luther E. Proper        
|Chief Executive Officer 
|November 13, 2009       

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.
#### State of New Hampshire Division of Health and Human Services, Respondent, v Herbert Tuchman et al., Appellants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam Altman, J.), entered on or about January 18, 1990, unanimously affirmed, for the reasons stated by Myriam Altman, J. Respondent shall recover of appellants $250 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger and Asch, JJ.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Gateway 2000, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 33-08837, 33-84116, 33-84118, 33-
84120, 33-84122, 33-84124, 333-33231 and 333-36071) of our report dated January
21, 1999, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements and financial
statement schedule of Gateway 2000, Inc. as of December 31, 1997 and 1998, and
for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1998, which report
is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

San Diego, California
March 29, 1999