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

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3232

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 31.1








I, Edward J. Sisk, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods included in the year covered by this report of Merrill Lynch Municipal ABS, Inc. Prerefunded Municipal Certificates, Series 2 and Series 3;





2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;





3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided to the depositor by the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;





4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the depositor and the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the depositor and trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement; and





5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the compliance by the trustee and the depositor with the minimum servicing or similar standards based upon the report provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, that is included in these reports.





In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas.








By:
/s/ Edward J. SiskName:       Edward J. SiskTitle:         President(senior officer in charge of securitization function of the Depositor)Date:        March 30, 2011
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

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

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,2009 (the “Form 10-Q”) of Cardinal Financial Corporation (the “Company”),I, Bernard H. Clineburg, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

(a)           the Form 10-Q fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(b)           the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairlypresents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition andresults of operations of the Company and its subsidiaries as of, and for, theperiods presented in the Form 10-Q.

 

 
| Date:  November 6, 2009 |   | /s/  Bernard H. Clineburg             |
|-----------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                              |   | Bernard  H. Clineburg                 |
|                              |   | Chairman  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2214

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
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         3,883
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  7,951
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (50)
<INVENTORY>                                    14,876
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               28,539
<PP&E>                                         39,955
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (18,982)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 51,922
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          7,925
<BONDS>                                        68
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       175
<OTHER-SE>                                     42,350
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   51,922
<SALES>                                        41,407
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               41,407
<CGS>                                          36,651
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  36,651
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               6,953
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             152
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,197)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (768)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,427)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,427)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.17)



</TABLE>
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-2018-0025-4261

Scosche Industries, Inc:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20. 

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

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

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
Order filed October 18, 2012. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00155-CV

____________

ROBERT FIELDS AND JOHN FIELDS, CO-INDEPENDENT EXECUTORS OF 

THE ESTATE OF JAMES R. FIELDS, DECEASED, Appellants

V.

MARY ELIZABETH LEE FIELDS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 190th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-52159

O R D E R

On April 12, 2012, this court abated this case for mediation. On June 26, 2012, 

the mediator reported that the case had settled in mediation. On September 13, 2012, this 

court sent correspondence to the parties requesting a dispositive motion or motion to 

dismiss. As of today, the parties have not responded. 

Appellant’s brief was due July 13, 2012. No brief or motion for extension of time 

has been filed. 
Unless appellant submits a brief to the clerk of this court on or before November 

15, 2012, the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 

42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM
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-2018-0025-3678

SPM Flow Control, Inc. DBA Weir SPM:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20.

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

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

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
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-2018-0025-3894

Yaesu 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 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
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-2018-0025-4479

OMRON Management Center of America, Inc:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20.

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

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

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 18

October 18, 1999



JPS Packaging Company
4200 Somerset Drive, Suite 208
Prairie Village, Kansas 66208

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We have been furnished with a copy of Form 10-Q of JPS Packaging Company (the
Company) for the three months ended September 30, 1999, and have read the
Company's statements contained in notes 2 and 3 to the condensed financial
statements included therein. As stated in note 3, the Company changed its method
of accounting for inventory from the LIFO inventory valuation method to FIFO,
and states that the new adopted accounting principle is preferable in the
circumstances because it provides for the best matching of raw material cost to
the product's selling price, and thus presents a clearer picture of operating
results. In accordance with your request, we have reviewed and discussed with
Company officials the circumstances and business judgment and planning upon
which the decision to make this change in the method of accounting was based.

We have not audited any financial statements of the Company as of any date or
for any period subsequent to December 31, 1998, nor have we audited the
information set forth in the aforementioned notes 2 and 3 to the condensed
financial statements; accordingly, we do not express an opinion concerning the
factual information contained therein.

With regard to the aforementioned accounting change, authoritative criteria have
not been established for evaluating the preferability of one acceptable method
of accounting over another acceptable method. However, for purposes of the
Company's compliance with the requirements of the Securities and Exchange
Commission, we are furnishing this letter.

Based on our review and discussion, with reliance on management's business
judgment and planning, we concur that the newly adopted method of accounting is
preferable in the Company's circumstances.

Very truly yours,

KPMG LLP
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Hard Rock Hotel, Inc. (the “Company”) for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Peter A. Morton, asChief Executive Officer of the Company, and James D. Bowen, as Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the bestof his knowledge:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| /s/ Peter A. Morton            |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
| Name: Peter A. Morton          |
| Title: Chief Executive Officer |
| Date: November 14, 2003   |
|                           |
| /s/ James D. Bowen             |   |
| Name: James D. Bowen           |
| Title: Chief Financial Officer |
| Date: November 14, 2003   |

 

This certification accompaniesthe Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemedfiled by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended.

 

----
#### HORTENSE P. BOND v. CHARLES BOND.

(Filed 11 June, 1952.)

1. Appeal and Error § 6c (2)—

An exception to the judgment presents only the *questions*whether the facts found support the judgment and whether any error of law appears upon the face of the record.

2. Divorce and Alimony § 12—

Upon the hearing of plaintiff’s motion for alimony and counsel fees *pendente lite*in her suit for subsistence without divorce, G.S. 50-16, the finding of the court that defendant had obtained a valid decree of absolute divorce in another state supports a denial of the motion for alimony *pendente lite,*but it is error for the court also to dismiss the action, since the cause was not before the court on final hearing on the merits and the court was without jurisdiction to dismiss it.

Appeal by plaintiff from Williams, JOctober Term, 1951, ObaNGE.

Modified and affirmed.

Civil action for alimony without divorce and to recover the value of certain personal property, heard on motion for alimony and counsel fees *fendente lite.*

Plaintiff alleges a cause of action for subsistence without divorce under Gr.S. 50-16 and also for the recovery of the value of certain personal property belonging to plaintiff and appropriated by defendant to his own use. She prays an order for alimony without divorce and for judgment for the value of said personal property.

Defendant, answering, enters certain denials, pleads certain defenses, and specifically pleads a decree of divorce entered in the Circuit Court of Yolusia County, Florida, a court of competent jurisdiction.

*755Tbe cause came on for bearing in tbe court below on plaintiff’s motion for alimony and counsel fees *pendente lite.*After bearing tbe motion on affidavits, tbe court below found as a fact tbat defendant is a resident of tbe State of Florida and tbat be obtained a valid decree of divorce in tbat State 1 September 1949. It thereupon concluded tbat “defendant’s plea in bar of tbe plaintiff’s right to proceed in this action should be sustained” and entered judgment dismissing tbe action at tbe cost of tbe plaintiff.

*L. J. Phipps for plaintiff appellant.*

*Paul B. Edmundson, John S. Peacoclc, and Bonner D. Sawyer for defendant appellee.*

Barnhill, J.

Tbe exception to tbe judgment entered presents for decision only two questions: (1) Do tbe facts found support tbe judgment, and (2) does any error of law appear upon tbe face of tbe record? *Rader v. Coach Co.,*225 N.C. 537, 35 S.E. 2d 609; *Simmons v. Lee,*230 N.C. 216, 53 S.E. 2d 79, and cases cited; *Surety Corp. v. Sharpe,*233 N.C. 642, 65 S.E. 2d 138; *S. v. Raynor, ante,*p. 184.

Upon tbe findings made, tbe court correctly denied tbe motion for alimony *pendente lite.*But tbe cause was before tbe court for bearing of tbat motion only. It is so recited in tbe judgment. “It was not before tbe court on final bearing on tbe merits. Hence tbe court was without jurisdiction to dismiss tbe action . . .” *Briggs v. Briggs,*234 N.C. 450.

Tbe judgment entered must be modified so as to limit it to a denial of alimony *pendente lite,*and tbe cause must be reinstated on tbe docket for trial. As so modified, tbe judgment is affirmed.

Modified and affirmed.