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 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6002

Apergy ESP Systems, LLC:

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
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-2018-0025-5806

Magna Electronics: 

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
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5019 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5019

   To limit the salaries and certain travel expenses of the Special 
        Presidential Envoy for Climate, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 27, 2023

   Ms. Mace introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To limit the salaries and certain travel expenses of the Special 
        Presidential Envoy for Climate, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Cut the Climate Czar's Carbon Act''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON SALARIES AND CERTAIN TRAVEL EXPENSES OF SPECIAL 
              PRESIDENTIAL ENVOY FOR CLIMATE.

    (a) Salary.--No Federal funds may be used for the salary of the 
Special Presidential Envoy for Climate or any employee of the Executive 
Office of the President working for, or on behalf of, such Special 
Presidential Envoy.
    (b) Travel Expenses.--No Federal funds may be used for the official 
travel of the Special Presidential Envoy for Climate or any such 
employee unless the Special Presidential envoy or such employee 
purchases, using personal funds, offsetting emissions reductions for 
such travel.
                                 <all>
```
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-2018-0025-6331

Setra Systems:

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
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-2018-0025-6198

Dallas Airmotive, 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 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
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 23(a)


                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

   
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of   
General Growth Properties, Inc. on Forms S-3 (File Nos. 333-11067, 333-15907, 
333-17021, 333-23035, 333-37247, 333-37383 and 333-41603) and the Registration
Statement of Forms S-8 (File Nos. 33-79372, 333-07241, 333-11237 and 333-28449)
of our reports dated February 11, 1997, on our audits of the consolidated
financial statements and financial statement schedule of General Growth
Properties, Inc. as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and for the three years in
the period ended December 31, 1996, and of our report dated February 13, 1996,
except for information as to earnings per share, dividends per share and
average shares outstanding, for which the date is March 3, 1997 on our audits
of the consolidated financial statements of Westfield America, Inc. formerly
CenterMark Properties, Inc. as of December 31, 1995 and 1994 and for the year
ended December 31, 1995 and the period from February 12, 1994 through December
31, 1994 and from January 1, 1994 through February 11, 1994, which reports are
included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A.
    






                                        Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.


Chicago, Illinois
January 12, 1998
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-2018-0025-4905

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
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 520 

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide that artificially 

propagated animals shall be treated the same under that Act as naturally 

propagated animals, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 25, 2023 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide 

that artificially propagated animals shall be treated the 

same under that Act as naturally propagated animals, 

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. TREATMENT OF ARTIFICIALLY PROPAGATED 

4 ANIMALS. 

5 Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 

6 U.S.C. 1533) is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing new subsection: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 520 IH

1 ‘‘(j) TREATMENT OF ARTIFICIALLY PROPAGATED

2 ANIMALS.—The Secretary shall not distinguish between 

3 naturally propagated animals and artificially propagated 

4 animals in making any determination under this Act.’’. 

5 SEC. 2. ARTIFICIAL PROPAGATION FOR MITIGATION PUR6 POSES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 14 of the Endangered 

8 Species Act of 1973 (relating to repeals of provisions of 

9 law, which have executed) is amended to read as follows: 

10 ‘‘ARTIFICIAL PROPAGATION FOR MITIGATION PURPOSES

11 ‘‘SEC. 14. The Secretary shall authorize the use of 

12 artificial propagation of animals of a species for purposes 

13 of any mitigation required under this Act with respect to 

14 such species.’’. 

15 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of con16 tents in the first section of such Act is amended by strik17 ing the item relating to such section and inserting the fol18 lowing: 

‘‘Sec. 14. Artificial propagation for mitigation purposes.’’. 

19 SEC. 3. APPLICATION. 

20 The amendments made by this Act shall apply with 

21 respect to a species without regard to whether the species 

22 was determined to be an endangered species or threatened 

23 species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 520 IH

1 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) before, on, or after the date of enact2 ment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 18610]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8981]



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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Garrison Diversion Unit Federal Advisory Council Meeting

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (5 U.S.C. App. I), this notice announces a meeting of the Garrison 
Diversion Unit Federal Advisory Council established under the authority 
of the Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act of 1986 (Public Law 
99-0294, May 12, 1986). The meeting is open to the public. Interested 
persons may make oral statements to the council or may file written 
statements for consideration.

DATES: The Garrison Diversion Unit Federal Advisory Council will meet 
from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 25, and from 8 a.m. to 11 
a.m. on Wednesday, April 26, 1995.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Dakota Inn, I-94/Highway 281 
South, Jamestown, North Dakota.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Grady Towns, Ecological Services, at (303) 236-8186.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Garrison Diversion Unit Federal Advisory 
Council will consider and discuss subjects such as the Kraft Slough 
status and acquisition, the Garrison Diversion Unit project update and 
wildlife budget, Garrison Collaborative Process, Wetland Trust, Oakes 
Test Area, mitigation and enhancement, and Lonetree land acquisition.

    Dated: April 5, 1995.

Elliott N. Sutta,

Acting Regional Director.

[FR Doc. 95-8981 Filed 4-11-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

** **

** **

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Alamo Group Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dan E. Malone,Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer (Principal FinancialOfficer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adoptedpursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

-  The Form 10-K fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
-  The informationcontained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| April 7,  2010 | /s/Dan E.  Malone                                                       |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|           | Dan E.  Malone

Executive  Vice President & Chief Financial Officer |
|           | (Principal Financial Officer)                                           |
In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09

- 1 6

- 00 299

- CV

_________________

LAYNE WALKER , Appellant

V.

STEPHEN HARTMAN , Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 58 th District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. A

- 198,246

__________________________________________________________________

ORDER

Appell ee filed a motion to recuse Justice Charles Kreger on September 23

,

201 6

. I certify the matter to the court for decision. See Tex. R. App. P. 16.3(b).

ORDER ENTERED September 2 9 , 201 6

.

______________________________ CHARLES KREGER

Justice
GROVER SELLERS Auwrrlv 11. TEXAS 

,: ' ". " 

Mr. T. M, Trimble ,': 

First Assistant Superintendent 

State Department of'Education 

,,., ,,, _, .~ _: ~ 

Austin, Texas I 

Dear Sir: Opinion No, ~0-5813 " 

Be: Under the facts submitted, may the 

Equalization Board of ,the .Texarlcana, 

Texas, Public Schools~ evaluateand 

'assess for taxation monqy.and'se-- 

curities of certain .estates deosited 

in the Texarkana National Bank t 

You have submitted the following question, submitted to you,byMr. 

H. W. Stillwell, Superintendent of the Texarkana schools: 

"The Equalization Board duly appointed by the School Board, 

equalized taxes and made i.ts,,report. In,s~ doping, it put on 

the tax roll a certain assessment against three estates 

which it evaluated itself. The assessment ~against these 

estates was in each caae~ for money and~ar securities which 

in the opinion of the~.equalization Bo~ard the sstate~s had on 

deposit or in safety depasit.boxes~in the Tcxarkana National 

Bank. It was of then opinion that each estate had at lea89 as 

much as the Board.included on theaaaassment,~ The Board did 

not make such assessment againstany other taxpayer or any 

other taxpaying estate in the School District. 

The School Board desires to know whether such assessment on 

the tax roll by the Equalization Board is le~gal and would 

stand." 

In the case of Burnett vs. Tax Collector, 13 S.W. (2d) page 613, 

Judge Gaines of the Supreme Court of Texas said: 

"The, function of the board of equalization is to correct 

errors in the valuation of property that has been properly 

assessed. It has no power to add to the rolls property not 

previously assessed, or to take from them property which they 

embrace, Galveston Co. vs. Gas Company, '72 Tex. 509, 10 S.W. 

Rep. 583." 
c 

Mr. T. M, Trimble, page 2 0-5813 

In the case of Crocker V. Santo Causal Independent School District 

et al, 116 S.W. (2d) page 750 the court used the following lanwge a 

"The assessment of property ie peculiarly the duty and responsibility of a tax assessor. The jurisdiction of the commiseionerst court with reference to assessments is confined 

to raising or lowering assessments as incident to its duties 

as a board of equalization. It has no power to add property 

to the tax rolls not previously assessed, nor to take property 

from them! 

In view of the foregoing authorities you are advised that the question propounded by Mr. Stillwell is answered in the negat.ive~. The 

Board of Equalization exceded its authority when it added to'the 

tax,rolls property not previously assessed.~ 

APPROVED FEB. ,l, 1944 

GROVER SELLERS 

ATTORNEY GENERALS OF TEXAS 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

CFG:ncd;ml 

BY C. F. Gibson 

Assistant
----

----

| 1.     | Such      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008,      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except as otherwise noted in Item 4(A);      and                                        |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
| 2.     | The      information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for      the quarter ended March 31, 2008, fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Universal      Fog Inc., except as otherwise noted in Item  4(A). |

| By:    | /s/ Tom      BontemsTom      BontemsChief Executive      Officer |
|-----------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: |   July      7, 2008 |
|--------|-------------------------------|
#### David Magier et al., Appellants, v Robert Abrams, as Attorney-General of the State of New York, Respondent.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (David B. Saxe, J.), entered on or about March 6, 1990, which granted respondent’s cross motion to dismiss the petition, denied the CPLR article 78 application seeking to compel respondent’s acceptance of the proposed offering plan for filing, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioners as sponsors of the cooperative conversion of a residential apartment building at 157 East 81st Street in New York County, submitted a proposed offering plan to the Attorney-General on February 24, 1989. The Department of Law ultimately rejected the plan for filing on the basis that it could not determine that there were not excessive long-term vacancies as required by General Business Law § 352-eeee (2) (e). While the number of dwelling units in the building for purposes of this calculation has been disputed, there is no controversy as to the existence of at least two such vacancies or as to the proposition that a third such vacancy would provide sufficient support to sustain respondent’s determination. The dispute has therefore been refined to the question of the proper treatment of apartment 3C, which unit was to be offered for sale under the proposed offering plan.

*245Prior to the sponsors’ acquisition of the property on August 16, 1988, the apartment was occupied by the building’s superintendent without any lease. Upon petitioners’ acquisition of the property, the superintendent was terminated and, by agreement of September 9, 1988, he agreed to vacate the premises in return for a $20,000 payment. Pursuant thereto, he vacated the apartment on either October 7 or 15, 1988. Petitioners maintain this two- or three-week occupancy during the relevant five-month prefiling period precludes respondent’s determination that this was a long-term vacancy.

The contention was properly rejected by Supreme Court. Petitioners sponsors had the burden of proof on this issue *(Matter of Harbor Tower v Abrams,*85 AD2d 558, *affd*56 NY2d 740). Where the occupant at no time had a lease for the unit and his brief occupancy during the relevant five-month period was subject to an agreement to vacate, there was inadequate proof that he was a bona fide tenant during that period of time within the meaning of General Business Law § 352-eeee (2) (e). *(See, Matter of 140 W. 4th St. Corp. v Abrams,*152 AD2d 847.)

We have examined petitioners’ other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Asch, Wallach and Smith, JJ.