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-2018-0025-4573

Zipline International 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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4174

New York Air Brake 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

_03.20.19.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 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THIS
STATEMENT  OF  OPERATIONS  DATED  SEPTEMBER  30,  1998 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-KSB.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000882362
<NAME>                        PARACELSIAN, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                 1 
<CURRENCY>                               USD
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                         1
<CASH>                            250,542
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                       171,689
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  506,408
<PP&E>                            757,347
<DEPRECIATION>                    492,623
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  1,590,101
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             287,488
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                          179,424
<OTHER-SE>                      1,087,210
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    1,590,101
<SALES>                            14,312
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   55,730
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   2,093,520
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                (2,008,214)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            (2,008,214)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                   (2,008,214)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (0.14)
        

</TABLE>
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-2018-0025-2301

Primex Family of Companies:

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

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4501

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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3958

Cummins Allison Corp:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
Exhibit 31.1








I, James Nacos, 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/ James Nacos Name:
James NacosTitle:
President(senior officer in charge of securitization function of the Depositor)Date:
March 30, 2012
#### David G. WALTRIP, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Lisa Ann DAVIS, Defendant/Respondent.

No. 67069.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

May 30, 1995.

*148David G. Waltrip, Clayton, for appellant.

William J. Fleischaker, Joplin, for respondent.

CRAHAN, Judge.

David G. Waltrip (“Plaintiff’) appeals the trial court’s order dismissing his petition against Lisa Ann Davis (“Defendant”) seeking attorney fees for services rendered. We dismiss the appeal for lack of a final, appeal-able judgment.

On June 10,1994, Plaintiff filed a breach of contract action against Defendant in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County. Defendant entered a special appearance challenging personal jurisdiction and venue. Defendant maintained the petition was insufficient to establish proper venue over Defendant, and urged that proper venue is a requirement for personal jurisdiction.1 On September 6, 1994, the court sustained Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed Plaintiffs petition without prejudice. Plaintiff sought a writ of prohibition, which was denied. This appeal followed.

In his sole point on appeal, Plaintiff alleges the court erred in dismissing the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction and venue. Defendant asserts that we must dismiss the appeal because the trial court’s dismissal was without prejudice and therefore is not a final judgment. We agree.

The trial court here specifically dismissed the petition “without prejudice.” The general rule is well-established that a dismissal without prejudice is not a final judgment. *Siampos v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield,*870 S.W.2d 499, 500-01 (Mo.App. 1994). A dismissal without prejudice is generally not an adjudication on the merits and permits the party to re-file the action, unless otherwise barred. *Id. See also*Rule 67.03. Plaintiff concedes that there is nothing preventing him from refiling his petition. No appeal will lie when there is no final judgment rendered.2 We therefore grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss the appeal. Costs are assessed against Appellant.

REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER, J., concur.

1

. In *Richardson v. Richardson,*892 S.W.2d 753, 755 (Mo.App.1994), decided December 27, 1994, we held that proper venue is no longer a prerequisite to personal jurisdiction in Missouri. *See also State ex rel. DePaul Health Center v. Mummert,*870 S.W.2d 820, 822 (Mo. banc 1994).

2

. In his reply brief, Plaintiff attempts to deny it is the dismissal of the petition from which he is appealing and claims instead he is appealing the denial of the writ of prohibition. Disregarding the fact that such a claim was never preserved in the notice of appeal or point relied on, there is absolutely no merit to such a claim. The denial of a writ is not an appealable order. The only recourse for the denial of a preliminary writ by this court is to file a new, original writ in the Missouri Supreme Court.
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**STATEMENTOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterended March 31, 2004 (the “Form 10-Q”) of Cardinal Financial Corporation, I,Bernard H. Clineburg, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, herebycertify pursuant 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 Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended; and

 

(b)           the information contained in the Form10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financialcondition and results of operations of the Company and its subsidiaries as of,and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.

 

 
| Date:  May 6, 2004 | /s/ Bernard H. Clineburg                         |   |
|-------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                    | Bernard H. Clineburg                             |
|                    | Chairman, President and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4715

Horizon Hobby 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

_05.09.19.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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
Exhibit No. 10.2
                                                               ----------------



           United Retail Group Supplemental Retirement Savings Plan
                               Plan Amendment #5

United Retail Group, Inc. (the "Company") maintains for the benefit of its
employees the United Retail Group Supplemental Retirement Savings Plan (the
"Plan").

The Company has adopted, effective as of January 1, 1997 an amendment and
restatement of the Plan.

The Company wishes to revise certain provisions which appear in the Plan.

Therefore, this Amendment to the Plan shall be adopted effective as of March
1, 2003.

                                    AMENDMENT

         I. A New Section is added to Article 4 of the Plan as follows:

                           Investment in stock of the Company. Notwithstanding
                           any other provision of this Plan, the Trust may, at
                           the direction of the Company, acquire and hold
                           qualifying employer securities, as defined in Section
                           407 (d) (5) of ERISA, provided that any acquisition
                           of qualifying employer securities shall comply with
                           the requirements of Section 408 (e) of ERISA and, if
                           made on the open market, of Rule 10b-18 under the
                           Securities Exchange Act.

         II. In all other respects, the Plan shall remain unchanged.

                                                   Dated this 27th of March 2003

                                                   United Retail Group, Inc.

                                                   By: /s/ Kenneth P. Carroll
                                                       ----------------------

                                                   Title: Senior Vice President
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Keith McCRADY, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 68240.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

May 14, 1996.

Raymund J. Capelovitch, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jill C. LaHue, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and GRIMM, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted defendant of unlawful use of a weapon. Section 571.030.1(4), RSMo 1994. The trial court sentenced him as a prior and persistent offender to ten years.

In his sole point on appeal, he alleges the trial court erred in overruling his *Batson*challenge to three jurors. He contends the State’s explanations were pretextual.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. Rule. 30.25(b). The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 6416

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

,

v.

CHRISTOPHER JERMAINE TAYLOR, a/k/a Phoenix, a/k/a C

- Murda

.

Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia , at Huntington

. Robert C. Chambers , District Judge. ( 3:15

- cr

- 00009

- 1 )

Submitted : August 24, 2021 Decided: August 27, 2021

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Christopher Jermaine Taylor , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Christopher Jermaine Taylor appeals the district court’s order den ying Taylor’s 18

U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2) motion to modify the terms of his supervised release

. After reviewing

the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

Taylor’s motion. See United States v. Trimble , 969 F.3d 853, 856 (8th Cir. 2020) (stating

standard of review ). A ccordingly, we affirm the district court ’s order . We dispense with

oral argument because the fa cts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED