alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Dennis E. SMITH, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Karen A. SMITH, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 66660.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

May 23, 1995.

Irwin M. Roitman, Clayton, for appellant.

Ralph A. Dobberstein, Nathan S. Cohen, Guardian Ad Litem, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Wife appeals the custody provision of a dissolution decree awarding Husband legal and physical custody of the parties’ two minor children. We have reviewed the briefs filed by the parties and the record on appeal and find the trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Johnny A. MILLER, Appellant. Johnny A. MILLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. WD 48609, WD 49919.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 29, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 3, 1995.

Patrick J. Berrigan, Asst. Public Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

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

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Following a jury trial, Johnny A. Miller was convicted of pharmacy robbery in the first degree, § 569.025, RSMol994, and armed criminal action, § 571.015.1, RSMol994. Miller was sentenced to a term of twenty-five years on each count, the two sentences to be served concurrently. He appeals the judgment and sentence. Miller also appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. The appeals were consolidated pursuant to Rule 29.15(i). However, Miller has abandoned his direct appeal from his judgment and sentence by failing to brief any errors pertaining to same.

With respect to Miller’s appeal from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, no error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detañed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
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-2018-0025-6054

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

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4655

SPM Flow Control, Inc. DBA Weir SPM:

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

April 12, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4228

Apex Sourcing & Manufacturing: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_04.15.19.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-5314

ECM Industries 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 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 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-4519

CW Bearing 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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 67 (Friday, April 7, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 17807]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8590]



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

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
[Finance Docket No. 32661]


Norfolk Southern Railway Company--Trackage Rights Exemption--
Norfolk and Western Railway Company

    Norfolk and Western Railway Company (NW) has agreed to grant 
approximately 11.8 miles of overhead trackage rights between St. Louis, 
MO, and Berkeley, MO, to Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NS). The 
trackage extends between milepost SL-6.2 at Luther Yard, in the city of 
St. Louis and milepost SL-18.0 at Berkeley, in St. Louis County, MO. 
The proposed transaction will allow NS to expedite the movement of auto 
parts trains to the Ford Motor Company plant in Berkeley. The 
transaction was scheduled to be consummated on March 28, 1995.
    This notice is filed under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). If the notice 
contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab 
initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10505(d) may 
be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not 
automatically stay the transaction. Pleadings must be filed with the 
Commission and served on: Robert J. Cooney, Norfolk Southern 
Corporation, 3 Commercial Place, Norfolk, VA 23510-2191.
    As a condition to the use of this exemption, any employees 
adversely affected by the trackage rights will be protected under 
Norfolk and Western Ry. Co.--Trackage Rights--BN, 354 I.C.C. 605 
(1978), as modified in Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.--Lease and Operate, 
360 I.C.C. 653 (1980).

    Decided: March 29, 1995.

    By the Commission, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-8590 Filed 4-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7035-01-P
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-2018-0025-5606

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
#### Isiah WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 53898.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Sept. 27, 1988.

Application to Transfer Denied Dec. 13, 1988.

Janis C. Good, St. Louis, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Carrie Francke, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion following an evidentiary hearing. The trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. *Murphy v. Carron,*536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976).

An extended opinion would have no prec-edential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
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-2018-0025-5803

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 32.2



Certification of CFO

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section
1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Gateway, Inc., a Delaware corporation (Gateway), does hereby certify that:



| | a) |  | The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the Form 10-K) of Gateway fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | b) |  | The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Gateway.
| | -- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |  |  |     |  |                                 |  |                                                   
|------------------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------
|                         |  |  | 
|Dated: February 27, 2004 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    RODERICK M. SHERWOOD
III
|                         |  |  |  |     |  |                                 |  | Roderick M. Sherwood III                          
|                         |  |  |  |     |  |                                 |  | Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 61 (Thursday, March 30, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 16457]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7850]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary of the Army


Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement for Disposal and Reuse of Hamilton Army Airfield, California

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and 
the President's Council on Environmental Quality, the Army has prepared 
a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for disposal of certain 
excess property at Hamilton Army Airfield, California. The DEIS also 
analyzes impacts on a range of potential reuse alternatives.
    Copies of the DEIS have been forwarded to various Federal, state, 
and local agencies, and certain other interested organizations and 
individuals.

DATES: Written public comments and suggestions received within 45 days 
of this Notice of Availability will be considered in preparing the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement and in preparing a Record of 
Decision for the Army action.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement can be 
obtained by writing or calling Mr. Robert Koenigs, Sacramento District, 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1325 J Street, 13th Floor, Sacramento, CA 
95814-2922 or by calling (916) 557-6712. Mr. Koenigs may also be 
reached by fax at (916) 557-7876. Questions about the DEIS and written 
comments may be sent to the same address

    Dated 27, 1995.
Lewis D. Walker,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Environment, Safety and 
Occupational Health) OASA (IL&E).
[FR Doc. 95-7850 Filed 3-29-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
#### In re the INTEREST OF N.M., a minor child.

Nos. 65973 & 65974.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

Feb. 28, 1995.

Seth D. Shumaker, Lancaster, for appellant.

Rick Jackson, Kirksville, for respondent.

Before GRIMM, C.J., and REINHARD and CARL R. GAERTNER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Mother appeals the trial court’s judgment terminating her parental rights in the minor child. Also, maternal grandmother appeals the trial corat’s judgment denying her grandparent visitation rights. In their sole point, they contend the trial court’s judgment “was against the weight of the evidence.” We affirm.

At the conclusion of a lengthy hearing, the trial court entered detailed findings of facts and conclusions of law. The trial court found that this eight-year-old child had been under the court’s jurisdiction since September, *2161991. Further, that the “conditions which led to the assumption of jurisdiction still persist.” § 211.447.2(3), RSMo 1994. The trial court made additional findings as required by § 211.447.

The trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. An opinion would have no prece-dential value.

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 20
- 00398
- CR

John Wachtendorf, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 427TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, NO. D
- 1
- DC
- 18
- 204086, THE HONORABLE TAMARA NEEDLES, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant John Wachtendorf seeks to appeal a judgment of conviction for the
third

- degree felony offense of d riving w hile i ntoxicated (DWI) with two prior DWI conv ictions

. See Tex. Penal Code § § 49.0 4 , .0 9(b)

. The tr ial court has certified that Wachtendorf has waived the right of appeal. Ac cordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d ).

__________________________________________ Jeff Rose, Chief Justic e
Before C hief J ustice Rose, Justices Baker and Kelly
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: September 10, 2020
Do Not Publish
**Exhibit32.1**

#### **CERTIFICATEOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND FINANCIAL OFFICERS**

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, 2006.

 
|   | /s/ Robert M. Behringer                      |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Robert M. Behringer, Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                                         |
|   |                                         |
|   | /s/ Gary S. Bresky                           |   |
|   | Gary S. Bresky, Chief Financial Officer      |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 hasbeen provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----