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 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-5117

Johnson Controls, 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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


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




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Universal Capital Management, Inc.
      (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 31, 2006 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Michael D. Queen, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906
      of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my
      knowledge:




1.
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




2.
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




/s/
  Michael D. Queen


Michael
      D. Queen


President
      (Principal Executive Officer)


September
      15, 2006







The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall not be deemed
      filed
      by the Company for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act
      of
      1934 (the “Exchange Act”) or otherwise subject to liability under that Section.
      This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into
      any
      filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act except to the extent
      that this certification is expressly incorporated by reference into any such
      filing.
#### STATE v. FAROY CANADY.

(Filed 18 September, 1957.)

Criminal law § 143—

Where suspended sentence is entered and defendant does not except or give notice of appeal during the term, but complies with certain of the terms of suspension, be waives bis right to appeal and may not thereafter appeal, even though written notice of appeal is served within ten days from the adjournment of the term.

Appeal by defendant from *Fountain, Special Judge,*April 22nd Special Criminal Term, 1957, of Chaven.

Criminal prosecution for operation of a motor vehicle upon a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of G.S. 20-138.

Defendant was first tried and convicted in the Recorder’s Court of Craven County. On appeal, he was tried *de novo*in the Superior Court on the original warrant.

Upon the jury’s verdict of guilty, the court pronounced judgment as follows:

“Judgment of the Court is that the defendant be confined in the common jail of Craven County for a period of ninety (90) days to be assigned to work the roads of the State under the supervision of the State Highway and Public Works Commission. Sentence suspended upon the condition that defendant pay a fine of $100.00 and court costs and remain on good behavior for two (2) years. The defendant surrendered his license to the court. The above sentence was suspended by and with the consent of the defendant, through his counsel, in open court given.”

During the term, defendant did not except to the judgment or give notice of appeal. On April 26, 1957, defendant paid the $100.00 fine and court costs in the amount of $51.85 to the clerk of the Superior Court.

On May 4, 1957, after adjournment of the (one week) term, but within ten days from the date of adjournment, defendant’s counsel, who had represented defendant at the trial, served a written notice of appeal on the district solicitor; and defendant’s purported appeal is based thereon.

The assignments of error defendant attempts to bring forward are based on exceptions to rulings made in the trial in the Superior Court.

*Attorney-General Patton and Assistant Attorney-General Love for the State.*

*614
      *Charles L. Abernethy, Jr., for defendant, appellant.*

Per Cueiam.

While the record on defendant’s purported appeal fails to disclose prejudicial error, any discussion of defendant’s assignments of error would be irrelevant; for, under the facts stated, the appeal must be and is dismissed on authority of *S. v. Lakey,*191 N.C. 571, 132 S.E. 570.

Appeal dismissed.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeals of

- )

)

Gilbane Federal )

)

)

)

)

)

)

) ASBCA Nos. 62 833, 62857, 62880

62915, 62911, 62860

62885, 62879, 62878

62914, 62922, 62910

62918, 62884, 62863

62923, 62864, 62865

62912, 62881

)

Under Contract No. W912GB

- 14

- C

- 0018 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT : Douglas L. Patin, Esq.

Sarah S. Osborne, Esq.

Amy E. Garber, Esq.

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Washington, D.C.

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq.

Engineer Chief Trial Attorney

Pietro O. Mistretta, Esq.

Paul Cheverie, Esq.

Megan J. Tooman, Esq.

Engineer Trial Attorneys

U.S. Army Engineer District, Europe

Samuel J. Harrison, Esq.

Engineer Trial Attorney

U.S. Army Engineer District, Middle East

Winchester, VA2 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The parties having settled 20 of the claims at issue in these consolidated

appeals, the following appeals are dismissed with prejudice:

ASBCA No. 62833 (Claim No. H-0054)

ASBCA No. 62857 (Claim No. H-0059)

ASBCA No. 62880 (Claim No. H-0093)

ASBCA No. 62915 (Claim No. H-0078)

ASBCA No. 62911 (Claim No. H-0067)

ASBCA No. 62860 (Claim No. H-0068)

ASBCA No. 62885 (Claim No. H-0103)

ASBCA No. 62879 (Claim No. H-0092)

ASBCA No. 62878 (Claim No. H-0090)

ASBCA No. 62914 (Claim No. H-0077)

ASBCA No. 62922 (Claim No. H-0087)

ASBCA No. 62910 (Claim No. H-0065)

ASBCA No. 62918 (Claim No. H-0081)

ASBCA No. 62884 (Claim No. H-0102)

ASBCA No. 62863 (Claim No. H-0071)

ASBCA No. 62923 (Claim No. H-0088)

ASBCA No. 62864 (Claim No. H-0072)

ASBCA No. 62865 (Claim No. H-0073)

ASBCA No. 62912 (Claim No. H-0075)

ASBCA No. 62881 (Claim No. H-0094)

Dated: March 27, 2024

DAVID B. STINSON

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals3 I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 62 833, 62857, 62880, 62915,

62911, 62860, 62885, 62879, 62878, 62914, 62922, 62910, 62918, 62884, 62863, 62923,

62864, 628 65, 62912, 62881

, Appeal of Gilbane Federal , rendered in conformance with

the Board’s Charter.

Dated: March 28, 2024

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
H 283.1 

000000009Z2901 I 

2195 

(4)111tliz 

# 

- 8MIX44-14- NUA 

*AIM 

wARtiVat 

* 

PEttit II it .1 TCI53.25 

B 10532500000000 

*Ct. 

# 

1410
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

August 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5732

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
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. See **

28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision ***

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CLIFFORD DILBERT,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

JOHN E. POTTER,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 09-16405

D.C. No. 3:05-cv-00087-MEJ

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Maria-Elena James, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted October 19, 2010*** 

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. 

Clifford Dilbert appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment

in his employment action alleging disability and age discrimination and

FILED

NOV 01 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-16405

retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse

of discretion the denial of a motion for appointment of counsel. Johnson v. U.S.

Treasury Dep’t, 27 F.3d 415, 416 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). We affirm. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Dilbert’s motion

for appointment of counsel given the unlikeliness of success on the merits. See

Johnson, 27 F.3d at 417 (appointment of counsel in employment action); Terrell v.

Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (28 U.S.C. § 1915 requires

exceptional circumstances to warrant appointment of counsel). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Dilbert’s motion to

compel and requests for a continuance of the summary judgment motion to obtain

further discovery. See Preminger v. Peake, 552 F.3d 757, 768 n.10 (9th Cir. 2008)

(setting forth standard of review).

On appeal, Dilbert does not challenge the merits of the grant of summary

judgment. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[A]rguments

not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”).

Dilbert’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
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-2018-0025-11672

Norgren, 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

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

XA12, Air Driven Hydraulic Pump, 3/3 Valve, 122 in3 Usable Oil, For use with Single-Acting Cylinder 

or Tool; Maximum Operating Pressure psi: 10000; Weight Lbs: 22.4; 30 - 125: 30 - 125; Hydraulic 

Pump Hydraulic to Air Ratio: 

8413500070 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.
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-2018-0025-3025

LED Technologies: 

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
#### In the Matter of Hentlyn David, Appellant, v New York City Housing Authority et al., Respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Hansel McGee, J.), entered November 27, 1989, which denied and dismissed the petition challenging a determination of the respondent New York City Housing Authority, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter remanded to the New York City Housing Authority for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.

*264The petitioner, a section 8 tenant *(see,*42 USC § 1437f), allegedly never received a notice sent by ordinary mail that her share of the monthly rental payment had been increased. At a hearing before the respondent Housing Authority, which administers the section 8 program in New York City, the Hearing Officer declined to make factual findings as to service of the notice, since petitioner did not contest the calculation of the rent increase. Petitioner’s contention has always been that the failure to notify her of the increase in her share of the rent has resulted in actual prejudice, since she was not billed for the increase share by the respondent landlord until some 10 months after the increase became effective, when the accrued delinquency was beyond her means to pay.

The agency should have determined the factual issue of service. If the tenant was not in fact served with the notice of rent adjustment, the agency should have determined, under the applicable regulations, whether the rent adjustment must be set aside as a result of the procedural irregularity. Pending this factual determination, and clarification of the agency’s determination, the respondent landlord is stayed from commencing or otherwise prosecuting any proceeding to recover possession of the premises. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Kassal, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.
Exhibit
32.2








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of JayHawk Energy, Inc. a Colorado
corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31,
2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), Lindsay E. Gorrill, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:





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





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





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
JayHawk Energy, Inc., and will be retained by JayHawk Energy, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.





/s/
      Lindsay GorrillLindsay
      Gorrill
              Chief
      Financial Officer
              February
      11, 2010
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-2018-0025-5912

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
Exhibit 32.1








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly  Report of B Green Innovations, Inc. Inc. (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30 2010, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certify, pursuant  to and solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and





2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.











Date:           November 16 , 2010





By: /s/ Jerome Mahoney


Jerome Mahoney


President, Chief Executive Officer and


Chief Financial Officer