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

March 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4180

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
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

RRH6010, 60 ton Capacity, 10.12 in Stroke, Double-Acting, Hollow Plunger Hydraulic Cylinder; 

Maximum Operating Pressure psi: 10000; Weight Kgs: 45; Oil Capacity Advance cm3: 2115; Stroke 

Ranges mm: 240 - 289

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.
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-2018-0025-5254

David C. Poole Company:

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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5678

Fluor Enterprises, Inc:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
<PAGE>
 
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.13
 
                                  FLEET BANK
 
                                                                August 22, 1997
 
Mr. Sebastian J. Sicari
Chief Financial Officer
Aseco Corporation
500 Donald Lynch Boulevard
Marlboro, MA 01752
 
Dear Sebastian:
 
  Reference is hereby made to the Letter Agreement (the "Agreement") executed
by and between Aseco Corporation and Fleet National Bank (as successor to
Fleet Bank of Massachusetts, N.A.) as of November 27, 1992 and amended as of
July 30, 1993, August 2, 1994, August 24, 1995 and August 30, 1996. We are
pleased to inform you that we have approved an extension of the Expiration
Date from September 1, 1997 to September 1, 1998. Nothing herein shall be
deemed to constitute a waiver, release or amendment of any other terms of the
agreement.
 
  The Borrower represents and warrants that the execution of this amendment
has been duly authorized by the Borrower by all necessary corporate and other
action and that the execution will not conflict with, violate the provisions
of, or cause a default or constitute an event which, with the passage of time
or giving of notice or both, could cause a default on the part of the Borrower
under its charter documents or by-laws or under any contract, agreement, law,
rule, order, ordinance, franchise, instrument or other document, or result in
the imposition of any lien or encumbrance on any property or asset of the
Borrower.
 
  The Borrower further represents that this agreement and the attached
Promissory Note each represent legal, valid and binding obligations of the
Borrower, enforceable against the Borrower in accordance with their respective
terms. In addition, the statements, representations and warranties made in the
Agreement continue to be correct as of the date hereof and the Borrower is in
compliance with all terms of the Agreement. Except as expressly affected
hereby, the Agreement remains in full force and effect as heretofore.
 
  Sebastian, we are pleased to extend the Agreement and look forward to
continuing our relationship with Aseco Corporation. Please sign below and
execute the attached note to evidence your acceptance of this amendment.
 
                                          Sincerely,
 
                                          Thomas W. Davies
                                          Senior Vice President
                                          High Technology Group
 
Agreed and Accepted:             Sebastian J. Sicari           September 3,
title:                           Vice President and CFO        1997
                                                               Date
 
                                      B-1
#### BRENTMOOR PLACE RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Randy Scott BLUESTONE and Barbara A. Bluestone and Eugene Holley and Brenda Holley, Defendants/Respondents.

No. 68948.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Oct. 8, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Nov. 18,1996.

Before RUSSELL, P.J., and SIMON and KAROHL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Brentmoor Place Residents Association, appeals from a judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County in favor of homeowners, Randy Scott Bluestone and Barbara A. Blue-stone and Eugene Holley and Brenda Holley. The judgment ruled certain subdivision restrictions were not enforceable against defendants.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for our holding.
#### Verne Getreu, Appellant-Respondent, v Jay Lebowitz et al., Respondents-Appellants, et al., Defendant.

In an action to recover a real estate broker’s commission, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Collins, J.), dated December 2, 1988, as granted the motion of the defendants Jay Lebowitz and Dabru Realty Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against them, and the defendants Jay Lebowitz and Dabru Realty Corp. have filed a notice of cross appeal from the order.

Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed as abandoned; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendants Jay Lebowitz and Dabru Realty Corp. are awarded one bill of costs.

The plaintiff Verne Getreu, a licensed real estate broker, initiated this action alleging that he was the procuring cause of a sale of certain real property and thus is entitled to a brokerage commission equal to 10% of the sales price. We find that the plaintiff did not bring the parties to the transaction together with respect to the terms of any purchase *(see, Taibi v American Banknote Co.,*135 AD2d 810).

A broker is not the procuring cause “simply because he initially called the property to the attention of the ultimate purchaser * * * there must be a direct and proximate link, as distinguished from one that is indirect and remote, between the bare introduction and the consummation” *(Greene v Hellman,*51 NY2d 197, 205-206).

In this instance, the most that can be said for the plaintiff’s *586efforts is that he alerted the defendant Jay Lebowitz to the availability of the property. The plaintiff never arranged nor attempted to arrange for a meeting between Lebowitz and the seller, nor did he even show Lebowitz the property. He did no negotiating on Lebowitz’s behalf, and, in fact, he inflated the purchase price from $100,000 to $200,000. Moreover, the record is barren of any effort by the plaintiff to determine how payment was to be made, the amount of real estate taxes on the property or the value of the property.

As the plaintiff was unable to adduce proof of genuine issues of material fact, summary judgment in favor of Jay Lebowitz and Dabru Realty Corp. was appropriate *(see, Ferber v Sterndent Corp.,*51 NY2d 782). Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Rubin and Miller, JJ., concur.
#### In the INTEREST OF C.L.N., a juvenile. JUVENILE OFFICER, Respondent, v. F.E.A., Natural Father, Appellant.

No. WD 50375.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Sept. 26, 1995.

Sue Crain, Fulton, for appellant.

Elizabeth K. Magee, Columbia, for respondent.

Before BERREY, P.J., and ULRICH and ELLIS, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Natural father, F.E.A., appeals the termination of his parental rights to his six-year-old daughter, C.L.N., pursuant to § 211.447 RSMo 1994. He asserts the juvenile officer failed to produce clear, cogent, and convincing evidence to support abandonment.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
**Exhibit32.1**

#### **SECTION1350 CERTIFICATIONS**

This Certificate is being delivered pursuant to the requirements ofSection 1350 of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes and CriminalProcedures) of the United States Code and shall not be relied on by any personfor any other purpose.

The undersigned, who are the Chief Executive Officer and ChiefFinancial Officer of Behringer Harvard Opportunity REIT I, Inc. (the “Company”),each hereby certify as follows:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company (the “Report”), whichaccompanies this Certificate, fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 14th day of August, 2007.
|        | /s/ Robert M. Behringer                       |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Robert M.  Behringer, Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                                          |
|   |                                          |
|   | /s/ Gary S.  Bresky                           |   |
|   | Gary S. Bresky,  Chief Financial Officer      |

 

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrantand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

----
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 97-2008WM

_____________

Mustafa Said, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Charles Johnson, CO I at CMCC; *

Daniel Kliethermes, CO II at CMCC; *

Litsky, CO at CMCC; Kelly Lock, *

Superintendent CMCC; John Doe, CO I *

of Fulton Diagnostic Center; John Doe, *

Superintendent of Fulton Diagnostic *

Center; * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

Defendants-Appellees, * District of Missouri.

*

Hampton, Dr./CMS, Inc.; Tammy * [UNPUBLISHED]

Nelson, Statewide Director of CMS, *

Inc.; *

*

Defendants, *

*

Dora Schriro, Director Dept. of *

Corrections, *

*

Defendant-Appellee. *

_____________

 Submitted: December 11, 1997

Filed: December 17, 1997

_____________
-2-

Before FAGG, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Mustafa Said, a Missouri prison inmate, appeals the district court's grant of

summary judgment in favor of the defendants in Said's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The

district court adopted the magistrate judge's report holding that the record did not

support Said's claims. On review, we are satisfied the magistrate judge correctly

applied the well-established summary judgment standard, and we find no error of law

in the magistrate judge's analysis. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the magistrate

judge's report. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Mark Anthony JACKSON, Appellant. Mark Anthony JACKSON, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 66562, 68809.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

April 30, 1996.

Mark Anthony Jackson, pro se.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Christine M. Blegen, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.

KAROHL, Judge.

Defendant appeals after imposition of concurrent twelve year sentences as a persistent offender on two counts of felony stealing. He also appeals denial of his Rule 29.15 motion to vacate judgment and sentence after movant testified by affidavit, and the court took judicial notice of, “the transcripts and entire files.” The appeals are consolidated pursuant to Rule 29.15(1). Defendant contends the trial court improperly sentenced him as a persistent offender. The state agrees. Defendant argues the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress the admission of certain evidence and statements obtained because both were products of an illegal search and seizure of an automobile. We affirm the convictions and remand for correction of sentence.

On November 23, 1993, three purses were reported missing from cars parked at the Bethesda Day Care Center. On the same evening, a detective of the Kirkwood Police *131Department received a report of a vehicle leaving the scene of an accident. The detective drove to the residence where the vehicle was registered. Defendant drove up behind the officer as the officer approached the house. The vehicle’s owner was a passenger. Both exited the vehicle. The detective stopped them and arrested defendant for driving without a driver’s license. He requested and received permission from the vehicle owner-in-possession to search the vehicle. He found two purses behind the rear seat on the passenger side of the vehicle during the course of the search. The purses were the subject of defendant’s motion to suppress.

The state agrees defendant was improperly sentenced as a persistent offender under § 558.019 RSMo Cum.Supp.1993. We remand to correct the sentences by withdrawing from the judgments any reference to persistent offender sentencing.

The second point briefed by counsel argues the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence and statements, and in admitting this evidence and statements of defendant, because the defendant’s right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure was violated. This argument is persuasive only if the evidence and statements are the products of an illegal search. Here, the vehicle search was conducted pursuant to consent of the owner who was present at all relevant times and in possession of the vehicle. There is no search and seizure issue. Point denied.

Defendant makes two pro se arguments. They essentially duplicate the search and seizure issue and fail for the same reason.

We affirm the convictions and sentences but not as to defendant’s classification as a persistent offender. The trial court is directed to correct the sentences by removal of any reference to persistent offender.

REINHARD, P.J., and GRIMM, J., concur.
**Exhibit 23**

 

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

The Board of Directors and Stockholders

Mothers Work, Inc.:

 

We consent to the incorporationby reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-59309, 333-90108,333-12321, 333-27611 and 333-90110) on Form S-3 and registrationstatements (Nos. 33-64580, 33-89726, 333-2404, 333-3480, 333-59529, 333-57766and 333-112158) on Form S-8 of Mothers Work, Inc. of our reportsdated November 17, 2004, with respect to the consolidated balance sheetsof Mothers Work, Inc. and subsidiaries as of September 30, 2004 and2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period endedSeptember 30, 2004, and the related financial statement schedule, whichreports appear in the September 30, 2004 Annual Report on Form 10-Kof Mothers Work, Inc.

 
| /s/ KPMG LLP |
|--------------|

 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

December 14, 2004

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Iola Crawford, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: From our review of the record of the suppression hearing, we conclude that the police had probable cause to believe that defendant was implicated in a homicide and thus conclude that her warrantless arrest was justified *(see, People v Carrasquillo,*54 NY2d 248, 254; *People v LeGrand,*142 AD2d 977, *Iv denied*73 NY2d 893). Probable cause was established by the sworn statements provided by citizen infor-

*1029mants, along with other incriminating evidence uncovered during the police investigation. Since the statements were from citizen informants, they were properly considered by the suppression court without the necessity of an independent showing of reliability (see, *People v Hicks,*38 NY2d 90, 93-94; *People v Cantre,*95 AD2d 522, 526, *affd*65 NY2d 790, 792). Contrary to defendant’s argument, the *Aguilar-Spinelli*standard is not applicable because these statements were based on personal observations or conversations with defendant or codefendants *(see, People v Bartolomeo,*53 NY2d 225, 234; *People v Meranto,*86 AD2d 776). The fact that the People redacted the names of the individuals from copies of the statements provided to defense counsel is irrelevant on the issue of probable cause. Additionally, defendant has no absolute right to disclosure of the identities of the informants *(see, People v Peterson,*159 AD2d 983; *People v Diaz,*147 AD2d 912, *Iv denied*73 NY2d 1014; *People v Delgado,*134 AD2d 951, *Iv denied*71 NY2d 895) and, since defendant failed to allege any prejudice by this nondisclosure, we conclude that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to disclose the informants’ identities at the suppression hearing *(see, People v Huggins,*36 NY2d 827, 828; *People v Goggins,*34 NY2d 163, *cert denied*419 US 1012; *People v Cerrato,*24 NY2d 1, 6-7, *cert denied*397 US 940; *People v Malinsky,*15 NY2d 86, 92). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County, Marshall, J. —murder, second degree.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.