alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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, 2014*

Decided July 3, 2014

Before

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

No. 14-1148

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

KARL V. FORT,

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 crackcocaine 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 750 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 under 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Fort, No. 09-1097 (7th Cir. July 13, 2009) (nonprecedential disposition).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 

Supreme 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.

AFFIRMED
#### MORGAN V. WALKER, Administrator, v. G. R. LOYALL et al.

(Filed 23 September, 1936.)

Torts B a — Held: Neither complaint nor answer alleged cause against pax’ty joined as codeiendant on motion ot original defendant.

Defendant had another party joined as eodefendant, and filed answer denying negligence on his part and alleging that the negligence of his codefendant was the sole proximate cause of the injury in suit, but demanding no relief against his eodefendant. *Held:*The demurrer of the party joined should have been sustained on authority of *Bargeon v. Transportation Co.,*196 N. O., 776, neither the complaint nor the answer of the original defendant alleging any cause of action against him, and G. S., 61S, permitting contribution among 'joint tort-feasors, being inapplicable since the answer of the original defendant alleges sole liability on the part of his codefendant and not joint tort-feasorship.

Appeal by defendant administrator from *Grady, J.,*at February Term, 1936, of Pasquotank.

Civil action to recover damages for alleged wrongful death.

*467Tbe original summons was not served on tbe receivers of tbe Norfolk Southern Eailroad; whereupon tbe defendant administrator, upon motion, procured an order making tbe receivers parties, and summons was duly issued and served. Tbe administrator filed answer denying liability and alleging that plaintiff’s intestate’s death was caused by tbe sole negligence of tbe receivers. No relief, however, is asked against tbe receivers by tbe defendant administrator.

Tbe receivers demurred to tbe complaint and to tbe answer of tbe defendant administrator upon tbe ground that neither pleading states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against them. Demurrer sustained, from which ruling tbe defendant administrator alone appeals.

*No counsel appearing for plaintiff.*

*John H. Hall for defendant, administrator, appellant.*

*Thompson & Wilson for defendants, receivers, appellees.*

Stacy, C. J.

The judgment of the Superior Court must be affirmed on authority of *Bargeon v. Transportation Co.,*196 N. C., 776, 147 S. E., 299, which is controlling upon the facts presently appearing of record. The two cases are not distinguishable by reason of the amendment to C. S., 618, enacted 27 February, 1929, permitting contribution between joint tort-feasors, because the allegation of the defendant administrator is one of sole liability on the part of the receivers, if any liability at all, and not one of joint tort-feasorship. *Ballinger v. Thomas,*195 N. C., 517, 142 S. E., 761.

Nothing can be added to what was said in the *Bargeon case, supra,*where the late *Justice Brogden,*with his usual clarity and conciseness, covers the whole matter. The decision is directly in point and is decisive of the present appeal.

Affirmed.
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-2018-0025-11486

Hanway International 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
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Anthony C. Jurak, Chairman of the
Board and Director of Jurak Corporation World Wide, Inc. (the Company), hereby
certify that:

|(1) |  | the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended
February 29, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

|                        |                                                                                                       |  |  |                        | 
|----------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  | ---------------------- | 
|Date:   April 14, 2004. |                                                                                                       |  |  | /s/   Anthony C. Jurak | 
|                        |                                                                                                      
|                        | Anthony C. JurakChairman of the Board and DirectorChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer | 

The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB or as
separate disclosure documents. A signed original of this written statement has been
provided to Jurak Corporation World Wide, Inc. and will be retained by Jurak Corporation
World Wide, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

11

---
#### Margaret Gilmartin, Respondent, v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., et al., Appellants-Respondents, and Burns International Security Service, Inc., Respondent-Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anita Florio, J.), entered November 9, 1989, which, *inter alia,*denied defendants’, Helmsley-Spear, Inc. and Parkchester Management Corp., motion and defendant Burns International Security Service, Inc.’s cross motion for summary judgment to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Negligence cases by their nature do not usually lend themselves to summary judgment *(Ugarriza v Schmieder,*46 NY2d *276471, 474) and this case falls within that principle. The mere existence of an intervening criminal act by a third person will not completely absolve a defendant landlord or defendant’s security service from liability where such defendants should have reasonably anticipated a risk of harm from criminal activity to persons on the premises *(see, Muniz v Flohern, Inc.,*155 AD2d 172, *Iv granted*161 AD2d 1218).

In 1986, plaintiff, a tenant in the Parkchester housing complex in the Bronx, was injured when she was forcibly robbed by an unknown intruder in the lobby of her apartment building. Our review of the record reveals that there are questions of fact as to the staffs change in shift procedures, which, along with other factors, allowed the complex to be unguarded for at least 15 minutes. It was during one of these shift changes that the robbery occurred. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
#### CLASSICAL GARDENS LIMITED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Melody J. MONROE, Defendant-Respondent.

No. 64266.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

March 22, 1994.

Michael K. Lambur, pro se.

Melody J. Monroe, pro se.

CRANDALL, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff, Classical Gardens Limited, appeals from a judgment entered, in a court-tried case in favor of defendant, Melody Monroe. Plaintiffs action was premised on breach of an oral contract. Plaintiff claims the trial court erred in entering judgment in favor of defendant. We affirm.

It is plaintiffs duty to file a transcript and to prepare a legal file so that the record contains all of the necessary evidence needed in making our determination. *Frasher by Autenrieth v. Whitsell,*832 S.W.2d 18, 19 (Mo.App.W.D.1992); Rule 81.12(c). Here, plaintiff failed to provide this Court with a transcript of the trial court proceeding. Because of the absence of a transcript we find that plaintiff failed to show any trial court error. Plaintiffs point is denied.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

REINHARD and CRIST, JJ., concur.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5097

A.W. Chesterton Company:

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
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-2018-0025-5354

Radio Systems Corp:

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
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-2018-0025-5207

Bergstrom, 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/%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
#### William L. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 40755.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Nov. 22, 1988.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Dec. 27, 1988.

William L. Johnson, Moberly, pro se.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., William J. Swift, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SHANGLER, P.J., and CLARK and NUGENT, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from denial, without evidentiary hearing, of Rule 27.26 motion for post-conviction relief.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. Rule 84.-16(b).
**EXHIBIT 31(b)**

I, Marc Gurov, chief financial officer of OPENLiMiT, Inc. (“Registrant”) certify that: 

1.     I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB (“Report”) of Registrant; 

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 Registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this Report; 

4.     I am 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 my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Report is being prepared; 

b)     Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this Report my 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 Report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5.     I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, 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. 

Date: May 12, 2006 

/s/ Marc Gurov

Marc Gurov 

Chief Financial Officer 

----
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2293

Quest Technologies dba Crystal Quest:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20.

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

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

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
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-2018-0025-3721

ECM Industries 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