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

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3305

ADH Guardian USA 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

_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
Organization Name:

Note: Representatives submitting on behalf of an organization must enter information below.

Requestor Representative:

Section 301 Investigation: China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology 

Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation - Form to Request Exclusion of Product

When submitting a product exclusion request using this form, enter the specified 

information in the following fields and explain the basis and rationale for your statements. 

By completing this form, you certify that the information provided is complete and 

correct to the best of your knowledge. 

1. Indicate whether the comment contains business confidential information (BCI), is a public

document, or is a public version of a BCI document.

3.

2. Please provide a complete and detailed description of the product of concern:

4.

5. Requestor's relationship to the product:

CONTINUED BELOW

*

10-digit HTSUS item number* for product you wish to address in this product exclusion request:

Use numerical characters only with no special characters (example: 1023456789). For help in finding 

the HTSUS item number associated with your product, see https://hts.usitc.gov/

1

7.

6. Does this submission in regulations.gov include additional attachments?

Please indicate whether any additional attachment contains business confidential

information (BCI), is a public document, or is a public version of a BCI document.

VERSION 1

Requestor Information

Requestor Name (Last, First):

Public Version of BCI

RC256, 25.8 ton Capacity, 6.25 in Stroke, General Purpose Hydraulic Cylinder; Maximum Operating 

Pressure psi: 10000; Weight Kgs: 10,0; Oil Capacity Advance cm3: 525; Stroke Ranges mm: 120 - 

174

8412210075 Schmidt, Jackie Enerpac Jackie SchmidtImporter Yes Contains BCI
END 2

8. Is this product, or a comparable product, available from sources in the United States?:

VERSION 1

11. Please provide information in support your request, taking account of the instructions

provided in Section B of the Federal Register notice (note: text entered below can extend

beyond the apparent size of this box).

9. Is this product, or a comparable product, available from sources in third countries?:

10. Please provide the value and quantity (with units) of the Chinese-origin product of concern

that you purchased for each calendar year specified. Limit this figure to the products

purchased by your firm (or by members of your trade association) alone. Please provide 

estimates if precise figures are unavailable.

2016 Value:

2015 Value:

2017 Value:

2016 Quantity:

2015 Quantity:

2017 Quantity:

No No BCI BCI BCI BCI BCI BCI

See addendum for additional information.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DAOOD QUODOS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 379 EAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 10th day of January, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 13, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4962

Duravant LLC and FMH Conveyors Americas:

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 and the 

request failed to show that this particular product is available only from China.

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

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3741

JLG 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 this particular product is available 

only from China.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4104

Tianhai Electric North America:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20. 

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

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

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 56 (Thursday, March 23, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15270-15271]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7102]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[OH45-1-5974b; FRL 5169-3]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio

AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

----------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 15271]] 


SUMMARY: The USEPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) revision request submitted by the State of Ohio for the purpose 
of satisfying Clean Air Act requirements. In the final rules section of 
this Federal Register, the USEPA is approving the State's SIP revision 
request as a direct final rule without prior proposal, because the 
USEPA views this as a noncontroversial revision amendment and 
anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the action is 
set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received 
in response to that direct final rule, no further activity is 
contemplated in relation to this proposed rule. If the USEPA receives 
adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn, and all 
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule 
based on this proposed rule. The USEPA will not institute a second 
comment period on this notice. Any parties interested in commenting on 
this notice should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 24, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed to: William L. MacDowell, 
Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Enforcement Branch (AE-17J), 
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

    Copies of the State submittal and the USEPA's analysis of it are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours at: (It is 
recommended that you telephone Bonnie Bush at (312) 353-6684, before 
visiting the Region 5 office.)

Regulation Development Section, Air Enforcement Branch (AE-17J), United 
States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bonnie J. Bush, Air Enforcement 
Branch, Regulation Development Section (AE-17J), United States 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois, 60604. 
(312) 353-6684.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct 
final rule published in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671(q).

    Dated: February 23, 1995.
Robert Springer,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-7102 Filed 3-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andrea Sue Biro, Also Known as Sue Andrea Biro, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Herold, J.), rendered May 9, 1988, convicting her of assault in the second degree, assault in the third degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, reckless endangerment in the second degree, reckless driving and violations of Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1111, 1172 (a) (two counts); § 1180 (a), (d); § 1126 (a); and § 1102, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 *540AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]). Kunzeman, J. P., Harwood, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4961 

To require ports of entry along the northern border to remain open as 

many hours per day as they were open prior to the COVID–19 pandemic. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2023 

Mr. ARMSTRONG (for himself, Mr. FULCHER, Mrs. RODGERS of Washington, 

Mr. ZINKE, and Mr. ROSENDALE) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to 

the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To require ports of entry along the northern border to remain open as many hours per day as they were open 

prior to the COVID–19 pandemic. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MINIMUM HOURS OF OPERATION FOR PORTS 

4 OF ENTRY ALONG THE NORTHERN BORDER. 

5 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Com6 missioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall 

7 ensure that the operating hours of all United States ports 

8 of entry located on the border between the United States 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4961 IH

1 and Canada are equal to or greater than the operating 

2 hours in effect immediately before the declaration of a 

3 public health emergency pursuant to section 319 of the 

4 Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d) as a result 

5 of confirmed cases of 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID– 

6 19). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
**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 30,2010 (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-Qfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(b)                                 the informationcontained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, theconsolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Company andits subsidiaries as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.

 

 
| Date:  November 5, 2010 | /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-2018-0025-4817

Arrowhead Electrical Products, 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 this particular product is available 

only from China.

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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6188

JOSEPH EDWARD WAGES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THEOTIS BECK; NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Paul Trevor Sharp,

Magistrate Judge. (CA-96-13-6)

Submitted: June 19, 1997 Decided: June 30, 1997

Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Edward Wages, Appellant Pro Se. Rebecca Kendrick Cleveland,

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. Wages v. Beck, No. CA-96-13-6 (M.D.N.C. Jan.

29, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D23-1184

Lower Tribunal No. 2013-CA-005860-O

_____________________________

TERRY SPEARS,

Appellant,

v.

ELISE BRADFORD,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County.

Donald A. Myers, Jr., Judge.

January 9, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

STARGEL, WOZNIAK and SMITH, JJ., concur.

Michael M. Brownlee, of The Brownlee Law Firm, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

Warren Kwavnick, of Cooney Trybus Kwavnick Peets, Fort Lauderdale, for 

Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
#### Kenneth D. GRIFFIN, Appellant, v. The OFFICE OF the ATTORNEY GENERAL, Appellee.

No. 04-95-00904-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio.

March 20, 1996.

Robert L. Busselman, Kenedy, for appellant.

Oscar Dominic Carvajal, Assistant Attorney General, Child Support Enforcement, Jourdanton, for appellee.

Before CHAPA, C.J., and HARDBERGER and GREEN, JJ.

OPINION ON ORDER RETAINING APPEAL ON THE DOCKET

GREEN, Justice.

On initial review, it appeared that we lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because appellant filed a notice of appeal when he should have filed a cost bond, affidavit of indigency, or cash deposit. On December 21, 1995, we ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. We now find that our prior order was erroneous, and we retain this appeal on our docket.

The trial court signed a final judgment adverse to appellant on October 5,1995. No motion for new trial was filed, and the appeal was due to be perfected by November 6, 1995, thirty days later. Tex.R.App.P. 41(a)(1). On November 5, 1995, appellant filed a notice of appeal. Because a notice of appeal is not available to non-governmental parties who appeal cases affecting the parent-child relationship, we questioned the ability of appellant’s notice to confer jurisdiction upon this court. *See In re Hall,*871 S.W.2d 251, 252 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 1994, no writ); Tex.Fam. Code Ann. §§ 109.002(a), 110.001, 110.002(e) (Vernon Supp.1996).

In *Grand Prairie Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Southern Parts Imports, Inc.,*813 S.W.2d 499, 499 (Tex.1991) (per curiam), the supreme court addressed the issue of whether a court of appeals may dismiss an appeal when an appellant erroneously files a notice of appeal rather than an appeal bond. The supreme court held that “[a] court of appeals has jurisdiction over any appeal where the appellant files an instrument that “was filed in a bona fide attempt to invoke appellate court jurisdiction.’ ” *Id.*at 500 (citing *Walker v. Blue Water Garden Apartments,*776 S.W.2d 578, 581 (Tex.1989)). The court concluded that appellant, on his own motion, must be allowed the opportunity to amend or refile the proper instrument. *Id.; see also Unwood v. NCNB Texas,*885 S.W.2d 102, 103 (Tex.1994) (per curiam).

Here, we find that appellant timely filed his notice of appeal in a bona fide attempt to perfect his appeal. *See City of San Antonio v. Rodriguez,*828 S.W.2d 417, 418 (Tex.1992) *171(per curiam) (describing a notice of appeal with the wrong cause number as a bona fide attempt to invoke jurisdiction). Therefore, this court has jurisdiction over the appeal, whether or not the notice of appeal was the correct document to perfect appeal. Because our jurisdiction was properly invoked, it was error to question it in our prior order.1

We retain jurisdiction over this appeal.

1

. We express no opinion as to the adequacy of appellant’s notice of appeal should the appellee choose to enforce its right to a cost bond. Nor do we address whether appellant’s appeal could be dismissed for failure to post a bond upon appellee’s motion.