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

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5085

A.W. Chesterton 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 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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 62 (Friday, March 31, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16602-16603]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7965]




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



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Opportunity to Comment on the Applicant for the Eastern Iowa Area

AGENCY: Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration 
(GIPSA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: GIPSA requests comments on the applicant for designation to 
provide official services in the geographic area currently assigned to 
Eastern Iowa Grain Inspection and Weighing Service, Inc. (Eastern 
Iowa).

DATES: Comments must be postmarked, or sent by telecopier (FAX) or 
electronic mail by May 1, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted in writing to Janet M. Hart, 
Chief, Review Branch, Compliance Division, GIPSA, USDA, Room 1647 South 
Building, P.O. Box 96454, Washington, DC 20090-6454. SprintMail users 
may respond to [A:ATTMAIL,O:USDA,ID:A36JHART]. ATTMAIL and FTS2000MAIL 
users may respond to !A36JHART. Telecopier (FAX) users may send 
comments to the automatic telecopier machine at 202-720-1015, 
attention: Janet M. Hart. All comments received will be made available 
for public inspection at the above address located at 1400 Independence 
Avenue, S.W.,during regular business hours.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet M. Hart, telephone 202-720-8525.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This action has been reviewed and determined 
not to be a rule or regulation as defined in Executive Order 12866 and 
Departmental Regulation 1512-1; therefore, the Executive Order and 
Departmental Regulation do not apply to this action.
    In the January 31, 1995, Federal Register (60 FR 5897), GIPSA asked 
persons interested in providing official services in the geographic 
area assigned [[Page 16603]] to Eastern Iowa to submit an application 
for designation. Eastern Iowa, the only applicant, applied for 
designation to provide official inspection services in the entire area 
currently assigned to them. GIPSA is publishing this notice to provide 
interested persons the opportunity to present comments concerning 
Eastern Iowa. Commenters are encouraged to submit reasons and pertinent 
data for support or objection to the designation of Eastern Iowa. All 
comments must be submitted to the Compliance Division at the above 
address. Comments and other available information will be considered in 
making a final decision. GIPSA will publish notice of the final 
decision in the Federal Register, and GIPSA will send the applicant 
written notification of the decision.

    Authority: Pub. L. 94-582, 90 Stat. 2867, as amended (7 U.S.C. 
71 et seq.)

    Dated: March 22, 1995
Neil E. Porter
Director, Compliance Division
[FR Doc. 95-7965 Filed 3-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-EN-F
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. AP -76,972

EX P ARTE JUNIUS SERE AL, Appl icant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 08CR2114 IN THE 405 DISTRICT COURT T H F ROM GALVEST ON COUNTY
Per curiam . O P I N I O N The Court substitutes this opinion for the ea rlier opinion issued on Fe bruar y 27, 2013. P u rs u ant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, t h e cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of possession of a contro l l ed substance and sentenc ed to thirty -two year s’ imprisonment. The Four teenth Court of Appea ls aff

irmed his conviction. Sereal v. State , No. 14-10-00594- CR (Tex. App.–Houston [14 ] t h May 10, 2011). Applicant contends that his due proce ss rights wer e violated beca use a fore nsic scientist did not follow acc epted standards when analy zing evidenc e and there fore the results of his analy ses are2

unreliable
. The State and the trial court agr eed that relief was war rante d befor e rema

nd, but the
rec ord was insufficient to decide the case at that time. This Court rema nded the application to obtain
more information. Specifica lly , the Court neede d three additional piece s of information to resolve this c ase: (1) a copy of the Depa rtment of Public Saf

ety (DPS) repor

t A pplicant was rely

ing on for his claim; (2) a deter

mination that the lab technicia n named in that repor

t was the only scientist that worke d on this sample; and (3) a finding as to whether th e s am p l e wa s destroyed or could be rete sted. The trial court has now provided this Court with a ll the information nece ssary to resolve this case on the merits. The DPS repor t shows that the l ab technician who was solely responsible for testing the evidenc e in this case is the scientist found to have committed misconduct
. Whil e there is evidenc e rema ining that is available to rete st in this case , that evidenc e was in the custody of the lab technicia n in question. This Court believes his actions are not reliable there fore custody was compromised, re sulting in a due proce ss violation. Applicant is therefor e entitled to re lief. Relief is g rante d. The judgme nt in Cause No. 08CR2114 in the 405 Dis t ri ct C o u rt of t h Galveston County is set aside, and Applicant is rema nded to the custody of the Sheriff of Galveston County
. The trial court shall issue any nece ssary bench war rant within 10 day s afte r the mandate of this Court i ssues. Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice- Co r r ectional Institut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Deliver ed: Marc h 6, 2013 Do Not Publish
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-2018-0025-5371

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
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. David ELLIOTT, Appellant. David ELLIOTT, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 64316, 67625.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District Division Three.

Jan. 23, 1996.

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

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

Before SMITH, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and RHODES RUSSELL, JJ.

*MEMORANDUM DECISION*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from his conviction by a jury of escape from confinement and sentence as a prior and persistent offender to ten years imprisonment. He also appeals from the action of the trial court in dismissing his post-conviction Rule 29.15 motion because of defendant’s escape after trial and prior to sentencing. The issues raised by defendant in the Rule 29.15 motion all related to pre-escape occurrences. The court property applied *Robinson v. State,*854 S.W.2d 393 (Mo. banc 1993) in dismissing the motion pursuant to the escape rule. *State v. Troupe,*891 S.W.2d 808 (Mo. banc 1995) does not invalidate the dismissal here. The only issue challenged on direct appeal involved a ruling concerning defendant’s efforts to call the prosecuting attorney as a witness. The testimony to be elicited from the prosecuting attorney was not relevant nor admissible. The court was well within its discretion in *63the ruling it made. An extended opinion would have no precedential value.

Judgment of conviction and order dismissing Rule 29.15 motion are affirmed. Rules 80.25(b) and 84.16(b).
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4004 

To alter requirements associated with small business loan data collection, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 5, 2022 

Mr. BOOZMAN (for himself, Mr. CRAMER, Ms. LUMMIS, and Mr. TILLIS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To alter requirements associated with small business loan 

data collection, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Lenders Exempt 

5 from New Data and Excessive Reporting Act’’ or the 

6 ‘‘Small LENDER Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. SMALL BUSINESS LOAN DATA COLLECTION. 

8 Section 704B of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act 

9 (15 U.S.C. 1691c–2) is amended— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4004 IS

1 (1) in subsection (g), by adding at the end the 

2 following: 

3 ‘‘(4) COMPLIANCE.— 

4 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—With respect to any 

5 rules or guidance issued under this subsection 

6 on or after the date of enactment of this para7 graph, the Bureau shall provide financial insti8 tutions not less than 3 years to comply with the 

9 rule or guidance. 

10 ‘‘(B) SAFE HARBOR.—With respect to any 

11 rules or guidance issued under this subsection 

12 on or after the date of enactment of this para13 graph, upon expiration of the 3-year period de14 scribed in subparagraph (A), the Bureau shall 

15 provide a 2-year safe harbor to all financial in16 stitutions during which the financial institutions 

17 are required to comply with the rule or guid18 ance but not subject to any penalties.’’; and 

19 (2) in subsection (h), by striking paragraphs 

20 (1) and (2) and inserting the following: 

21 ‘‘(1) FINANCIAL INSTITUTION.—The term ‘fi22 nancial institution’ means any partnership, com23 pany, corporation, association (incorporated or unin24 corporated), trust, estate, cooperative organization, 

25 or other entity that— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4004 IS

1 ‘‘(A) engages in any financial activity; and 

2 ‘‘(B) in each of the 2 preceding calendar 

3 years, originated not less than 500 credit trans4 actions for small businesses. 

5 ‘‘(2) SMALL BUSINESS.—The term ‘small busi6 ness’ means any entity with gross annual revenues 

7 of $1,000,000 or less in the most recently completed 

8 fiscal year.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
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-2018-0025-5704

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
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-2018-0025-5365

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
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

November 20, 2012

t1113

Order 

November 20, 2012

145545

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145545

COA: 302821 

Saginaw CC: 06-027797-FC

JEFFREY MONTREAL CURRY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 31, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.34

                           LEASE EXTENSION AGREEMENT

    This Lease Extension Agreement {"Agreement") is entered into by and between 
St. John Knits, Inc., a California corporation as Tenant and The Alhambra 
Partners, a California limited partnership as Landlord under that certain 
Industrial Real Estate Lease dated November 13, 1985 ("Lease") between Landlord 
and Tenant.

                                   RECITALS

A.  Pursuant to the terms of the Lease Tenant's initial lease term expires on
August 31, 1996.

B.  Tenant has the right to extend the Term of the Lease for two extended terms 
of five years each.

C.  Tenant has exercised its initial option to extend the Lease Term to August 
31, 2001 and Landlord and Tenant now desire to extend the term of and modify 
the provisions of the Lease to provide Tenant the right to occupy the Property 
for an additional five (5) year term on the terms and conditions of the Lease 
as modified in the manner set forth below.

    In consideration of the foregoing recitals and the covenants and 
conditions hereinafter contained, the parties agree as follows:

1.  LEASE TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be a period of five (5) years,
    ----------- 
    commencing September 1, 1996 and ending August 31, 2001. Tenant shall have
    the right to extend the Term for one additional five (5) year period in
    accordance with the provisions of the Lease.

2.  BASE RENT. Base Rent during the extension Term shall be $260,760.00 per year
    ---------
    for the first extension term ($0.53 per square foot per month). Base Rent
    shall be increased annually on the 1st day of September of each year
    thereafter by an amount equal to 4% of the Base Rent due in August of each
    year.

3.  OPTION TO RENEW. Pursuant to the terms of the Lease Tenant has one
    ---------------
    additional option to extend the Lease Term for an additional five year term.

4.  FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. Except as modified in the manner set forth in this
    ---------------------
    Agreement, the Lease shall remain in full force and effect during the
    extension Term provided herein.


                                      -1-









<PAGE>
 
5.  FURTHER ASSURANCES. Each party agrees to perform any further acts and to
    execute and deliver any further documents which may be reasonably necessary
    to carry out the provisions of this Agreement.

Executed this 30th day of July, 1996 to be effective September 1, 1996.

TENANT:

St. John Knits, Inc., a California corporation

By: /s/ ROGER G. RUPPERT
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Roger G. Ruppert, Sr. Vice President/Chief Financial Officer


LANDLORD:

The Alhambra Partners, a California limited partnership

By: /s/ ROBERT E. GRAY, Trustee of Gray Family Trust
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Robert E. Gray, Trustee of The Gray Family Trust, General Partner
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 61 (Thursday, March 30, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 16532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8025]

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

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Notice of Agency Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the ``Government in the Sunshine 
Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:02 a.m. on 
Tuesday, March 28, 1995, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider (1) matters 
relating to the Corporation's supervisory and corporate activities, and 
(2) matters relating to the probable failure of an insured depository 
institution.
    In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Vice 
Chairman Andrew C. Hove, Jr., seconded by Director Jonathan L. Fiechter 
(Acting Director, Office of Thrift Supervision), concurred in by Mr. 
Stephen R. Steinbrink, acting in the place and stead of Director Eugene 
A. Ludwig (Comptroller of the Currency), and Chairman Ricki Tigert 
Helfer, that Corporation business required its consideration of the 
matters on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier 
notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not 
require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public 
observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed 
meeting by authority of subsections (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), 
(c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10) of the ``Government in the 
Sunshine Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), 
(c)(9)(B), and (c)(10)).
    The meeting was held in the Board Room of the FDIC Building located 
at 550--17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

    Dated: March 28, 1995.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Patti C. Fox,
Acting Deputy Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-8025 Filed 3-28-95; 3:48 pm]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-M
```
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5860

Omron Management Center of America, 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