alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. John F. NELSON, Appellant. John F. NELSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. John NELSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. WD 46002, WD 46017 and WD 47205.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Nov. 16, 1993.

Brad B. Baker, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before HANNA, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and FENNER, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from conviction of three counts of rape, § 566.030, RSMo Supp.1992, two counts of sexual assault in the first degree, § 566.-040, RSMo 1986, and one count of sodomy, § 566.060, RSMo Supp.1992. Appellant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 postcon-viction relief motion.

Judgment affirmed. Rules 84.16(b) and 30.25(b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                     OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                            $1,970,865 
<SECURITIES>                                               0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                        223,199 
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0 
<INVENTORY>                                                0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   2,326,666 
<PP&E>                                             2,174,721 
<DEPRECIATION>                                        57,280 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     5,720,394 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                752,631 
<BONDS>                                              599,482 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0 
<PREFERRED>                                                1 
<COMMON>                                          11,718,684 
<OTHER-SE>                                                 0 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       5,720,394 
<SALES>                                                    0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           0 
<CGS>                                                      0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              0 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   1,029,934 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    14,996 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            0 
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        0 
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0 
<CHANGES>                                                  0 
<NET-INCOME>                                      (1,029,934)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (0.08)
                                                             

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 58 (Monday, March 27, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15819]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7668]



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


U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

TIME AND DATE: Friday, March 31, 1995, 10:00 a.m.

LOCATION: Room 420, East West Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, 
Maryland.

STATUS: Open to the Public.

Matter to be Considered:

Protocol Revisions

    The staff will brief the Commission on two new issues raised on 
a final rule revising the child-resistant packaging test protocols 
under the Poison Prevention Packaging Act. This matter arises from 
the Commission's decision on February 9, 1995, to reopen the 
proceeding and to accept oral and written comments on the newly-
raised issues.

    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-0709.

CONTACT PERSON FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Sadye E. Dunn, Office of the 
Secretary, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20207 (301) 504-0800.

    Dated: March 23, 1995.
Sadye E. Dunn,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-7668 Filed 3-23-95; 3:56 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-M
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-04-00164-CV

4R Oil Company, Inc., Appellant

v. State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GV300124, HONORABLE PETER M. LOWRY, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant 4R Oil Company, Inc., has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, stating that it no longer wishes to pursue the appeal and that appellee does not oppose its motion. We grant the motion and dismiss this appeal.

Mack Kidd, Justice Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Pemberton Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: June 24, 2004
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-2018-0025-4571

ECM Industries 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
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-2018-0025-5167

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
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-2018-0025-5128

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

July 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4046

Alo 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 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
DENY; and Opinion Filed May 21 , 2019 .

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00294
- CV IN RE MICHEAL GEROD MCGREGOR , Relator Original Proceeding from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F99
- 22740
- I 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Osborne, and Carlyle Opinion by Justice Osborne In this original proceeding, relator complains that the trial court has not hel d a hearing to determine whether a 1999 indictment and a 2001 indictment arose from the same offense and has failed to expunge the 1999 indictment . We deny the petition. To establish a right to mandamus relief in a criminal case, the relator must show tha t the trial court violated a ministerial duty and there is no adequate remedy at law. In re State ex rel. Weeks , 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). A s the party seeking relief, the relator has the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient mandamus record to establish his right to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Rules 52.3 and 52.7 require the relator to provide “a certified or sworn copy” of certain documents, inclu ding any order complained of, any other document showing the matter complained of, and every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief that was filed in any underlying proceeding. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1).– 2

–

Here, relato r has not filed an appendix or mandamus record

. The petition is insufficient to establish that a petition for expunction or any motion regarding the 1999 and 2001 indictments was properly filed and timely presented and that the trial court was asked to ru le but failed to do so within a reasonable time. As such, relator has not established a violation of a ministerial duty and is not entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of
mandamus. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 52.8(a) (the court must deny the petition if the court determines relator is not entitled to the relief sought).

190294F.P05 /Leslie Osborne/ LESLIE OSBORNE JUSTICE
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Steffano JAMES, Appellant. Steffano JAMES, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 65251, 68336.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Dec. 26, 1995.

Gary E. Brotherton, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

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

Before CRAHAN, P.J., and CRANDALL and DOWD, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the judgments entered upon his conviction of first degree murder and armed criminal action for which he was sentenced to concurrent terms of life imprisonment without possibility for probation or parole and thirty years, respectively. Defendant posits error in the trial court’s denial of a motion in limine, refusal to send an exhibit to the jury and failure to declare a mistrial *sua sponte*for alleged improprieties in the State’s closing and rebuttal arguments. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing.

*113We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find Defendant’s contentions on direct appeal to be without merit. We further find that an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. Defendant’s judgments of conviction are affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

We have likewise reviewed Defendant’s contentions of error and the record relative to the denial of Defendant’s Rule 29.15 motion. The motion court’s findings of fact are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the denial of Defendant’s Rule 29.15 motion pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
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-2018-0025-5308

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
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-2018-0025-4257

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
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-2018-0025-4216

Apex Sourcing & Manufacturing: 

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
#### MRS. FRANCES C. KNIGHTEN v. MRS. VIOLA McCLAIN.

(Filed 24 September, 1947.)

1. Husband and Wife §§ 36, S3—

The wife may maintain an action for criminal conversation with her husband and alienation of his affections.

*6832. Husband and Wife §§ 28, 35—

In the wife’s action for criminal conversation with her husband and the alienation of his affections, testimony by the wife relative to statements made to her by her husband tending to show his illicit relationship with defendant are incompetent. G-. S., 8-56.

Appeal by defendant from *Nettles, J.,*at January Term, 1947, of BuNoombe.

Civil action to recover damages for criminal conversation with plaintiff’s husband and the alienation of his affections. There was a verdict for the plaintiff, and from judgment entered thereon, the defendant appealed, assigning error.

*Don, 0. Young for plaintiff.*

*Jolm C. Cheesborough, S. J. Pegram, and J. W. Haynes for defendant.*

Denny, J.

The defendant demurred *ore tenus*in this Court on the ground that a wife cannot maintain an action against another for criminal conversation with her husband and the alienation of his affections. The demurrer cannot be sustained.

We concur in what was said in *Hinnant v. Power Co.,*189 N. C., 120, 126 S. E., 307, with respect to the right of a wife to maintain an action of this character, as follows: “Whatever her former status may have been, the doctrine of marital equality now clothes her substantially with similar relative rights, from which it follows that for a direet and intentional invasion of the right of *consortium*such as criminal conversation, alienation of affection, or the inhibited sale of narcotic drugs, an action now lies in favor of the husband or the wife.”

The defendant assigns as error the admission of testimony by the plaintiff, over defendant’s objection, relative to statements made to the plaintiff by her husband, which statements tended to show his illicit relationship with the defendant. The admission of this evidence was error. The statute, G. S., 8-56, among other things, provides: “Nothing herein shall render any husband or wife competent or compellable to give evidence for or against the other in any action or proceeding in consequence of adultery, or in any action or proceeding for divorce on account of adultery (except to prove the fact of marriage) ; or in any action or proceeding for or on account of criminal conversation, except that in actions of criminal conversation brought by the husband in which the character of the wife is assailed she shall be a competent witness to testify in refutation of such charges.”

Declarations of plaintiff’s husband as to his improper relationship with the defendant are incompetent as evidence for plaintiff in this *684action. *Grant v. Mitchell,*156 N. C., 15, 71 S. E., 1087; *McCall v. Galloway,*162 N. C., 353, 78 S. E., 429, and what is said in *Hyatt v. McCoy,*194 N. C., 762, 140 S. E., 807, as to the admission of such evidence for some purposes, will not be held to modify this rule.

The defendant is entitled to a new trial, and it is so ordered.

New trial.