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

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6453

Advanced Optowave Corp:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20. 

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

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

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4240 

To amend section 2441 of title 18, United States Code, to broaden the 

scope of individuals subject to prosecution for war crimes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 18 (legislative day, MAY 17), 2022 

Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. GRAHAM, and Mr. LEAHY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend section 2441 of title 18, United States Code, 

to broaden the scope of individuals subject to prosecution 

for war crimes. 

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 ‘‘Justice for Victims 

5 of War Crimes Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. WAR CRIMES. 

7 Section 2441 of title 18, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4240 IS

1 (1) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the 

2 following: 

3 ‘‘(b) JURISDICTION.—There is jurisdiction over an 

4 offense described in subsection (a) if— 

5 ‘‘(1) the offense occurs in whole or in part with6 in the United States; or 

7 ‘‘(2) regardless of where the offense occurs— 

8 ‘‘(A) the victim or offender is— 

9 ‘‘(i) a national of the United States or 

10 an alien lawfully admitted for permanent 

11 residence; or 

12 ‘‘(ii) a member of the Armed Forces 

13 of the United States, regardless of nation14 ality; or 

15 ‘‘(B) the offender is present in the United 

16 States, regardless of the nationality of the vic17 tim or offender.’’; and 

18 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

19 ‘‘(e) NONAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN LIMITA20 TIONS.—In the case of an offense described in subsection 

21 (a), an indictment may be found or an information may 

22 be instituted at any time without limitation. 

23 ‘‘(f) CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.—No prosecu24 tion for an offense described in subsection (a) shall be un25 dertaken by the United States except on written certifiVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:44 May 21, 2022 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S4240.IS S4240

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4240 IS

1 cation of the Attorney General or a designee that a pros2 ecution by the United States is in the public interest and 

3 necessary to secure substantial justice.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 23.3











April 5, 2011











GeoGlobal Resources Inc.


200, 625 - 4th Avenue SW


Calgary, AB


T2P 0K2





The Board of Directors


GeoGlobal Resources Inc.





We hereby consent to references to Chapman Petroleum Engineering Ltd. as set out in Item 1 – Business and Item 7 – Management’s Discussion and Analysis of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 of GeoGlobal Resources Inc. as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2011 (the Form 10-K) and to the use and inclusion of our reserve and economic evaluation of oil and gas properties owned by GeoGlobal Resources Inc. as Exhibit 10.35 to the Form 10-K and as Exhibit 10.35 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 for the year ended December 31, 2010 of GeoGlobal Resources Inc.





Chapman Petroleum Engineering Ltd.





/s/ C.W. Chapman





C.W. Chapman, P. Eng.,


President
**Exhibit99.2**

 

**STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER**

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

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 (the “Form10-QSB”) of Cardinal Financial Corporation (the “Company”), I, Carl E. Dodson,Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, hereby certify pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

(a)           the Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(b)           the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairlypresents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition andresults of operations of the Company and its subsidiaries as of, and for, theperiods presented in the Form 10-QSB.

 

 
| Date:  | May 12, 2003 | By:                           | /s/  Carl E. Dodson |   |
|--------|--------------|-------------------------------|--------------------------|--------|
|   |         | Carl E. Dodson                |
|   |         | Executive Vice President  and |
|   |         | Chief Financial Officer       |

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to Cardinal Financial Corporation andwill be retained by Cardinal Financial Corporation and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### March 6, 2009 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

ERNEST JOHN YOUNG, also known as Jason Aaron Presley, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 08-4144 v. (D. Utah) ELVIS A. PRESLEY; LISA PRESLEY; ELVIS PRESLEY, INC.; PATRICIA LANTERN, Doctor at University of Utah Hospital; JANET MOFFIT, Judge at Industrial Commission of Utah; GARY STOTT, Judge at Fourth District Court, Defendants - Appellees. (D.C. No. 2:08-CV-00281-TS)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BRISCOE , MURPHY , and HARTZ , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this court has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.1 In this appeal, Young does not challenge the district court’s disposition of his claims of entitlement to habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to determine whether Young is entitled to a certificate of appealability. See28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (providing no app eal may be taken from a final order disposing of a § 2254 petition unless th e petitioner first obtains a COA). -2- Plaintiff-Appellant, Ernest John Young filed a complaint invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in which he asserted claims involving allegations of kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, libel, slander, defamation, incarceration, rape, and extortion. Young’s allegations evolve from his central assertion that he is the biological son of Elvis Presley and the father of triplets kidnapped by defendant Lisa Presley from the University of Utah hospital. See also Presley v. Presley , 102 Fed. App’x 636 (10th Cir. 2004). The district court concluded these claims were frivolous. The court also concluded Young was not entitled to relief under § 2254 because his complaint failed to allege facts that would support a finding his constitutional rights have been violated by his incarceration. Accordingly, the district court dismissed Young’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The matter is before this court on Young’s appeal from the district court’s order of dismissal. 1 Having reviewed the record, Young’s brief, and the-3- applicable law, we can discern no reversible error by the district court. Accordingly, the dismissal of Young’s complaint is affirmedfor substantially the reasons stated in the district court order dated July 14, 2008. ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge
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-2018-0025-5545

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
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Alberto GALIANO, Appellant. Alberto GALIANO, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 64674, 67322.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Oct. 24, 1995.

Emmett D. Queener, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Mary Moulton Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

KAROHL, Judge.

Defendant appeals convictions on charges of Assault First Degree, in violation of § 565.050 RSMo 1978 and Armed Criminal Action, in violation of § 571.015 RSMo 1978. The state proved defendant shot his former girlfriend in the back as she was running away and then he shot her in the head as she was lying on her back. This occurred on March 19, 1984. He also appeals denial of Rule 29.15 relief after a hearing.

*184The direct appeal issue is without merit. Defendant argues the state failed to prove the serious injury element of § 565.050 RSMo 1994. When defendant was found in 1992, he was living in New York City, using an alias name. Since the shooting occurred in 1984, defendant was charged under RSMo 1978, which follows:

> 565.050. Assault in the first degree. — 1. A person commits the crime of assault in the first degree if:

> (1) He knowingly causes serious physical injury to another person; or

> (2) He attempts to kill or to cause serious physical injury to another person; or

> (3) Under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person and thereby causes serious physical injury to another person.

> 2. Assault in the first degree is a class B felony unless committed by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument in which ease it is a class A felony.

The state proved defendant attempted to kill or to cause serious physical injury to the woman he is charged with shooting. Therefore, it proved the elements of the applicable, 1978 statute. Defendant’s claim of error directed at the 1994 revised definition of the crime is misdirected.

The Rule 29.15 motion charged trial counsel failed to investigate alibi evidence. Defendant claimed he was in a shelter for the homeless in New York when the shooting of his live-in girl friend occurred. There is no allegation of fact or proof trial counsel could have found records or witnesses to prove movant’s claim involving events which may have occurred eight or more years before. Conclusively, trial counsel testified: (1) he received no identification or location of a shelter from defendant; and, (2) defendant gave “a couple different stories” where he was on the day of the shooting. For failure to meet his burden of proof, *State v. Leisure,*838 S.W.2d 49, 58 (Mo.App.E.D.1992), the denial of relief was supported and not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(j); *Wilson v. State,*813 S.W.2d 833, 835 (Mo. banc 1991).

Affirmed on both appeals.

REINHARD, P.J., and WHITE, J., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the
Annual Report of Destination Maternity Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



|                                                                                              
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/S/  JUDD P. TIRNAUER                                                                         
|Judd P. Tirnauer Senior
Vice President & Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)

January 11, 2011
2010 Performance-Based Incentive Program approved by the Compensation Committee



 Exhibit 10.39 

2010 PERFORMANCE-BASED INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN 

Purpose 
 This 2010 Performance-Based
Incentive Plan (the “2010 Incentive Plan”) is being established by the Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board of Directors of NightHawk Radiology Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) in
order to tie a portion of an Eligible Employee’s compensation for 2010 to the Company’s financial performance. This 2010 Incentive Plan will be applicable to all employees of the Company, including all officers of vice president level and
above of the Company (each, an “Eligible Employee”). 
 Funding of 2010 Incentive Plan Pool 

The 2010 Incentive Plan will be funded based upon the Company’s financial performance for 2010, as measured by the Company’s 2010 adjusted
EBITDA (“EBITDA”). Specifically, if the Company’s adjusted EBITDA exceeds a threshold percentage of the Company’s budgeted EBITDA (as established by the Compensation Committee), the amount of incentive compensation available to
be paid out pursuant to the 2010 Incentive Plan will increase by a specified percentage of the target pool amount (subject to a cap determined by the Committee). 

Payment to Individual Employees 
 Once
the overall funding percentage is established, payments will be made to the Eligible Employees equal to the Eligible Employee’s targeted incentive compensation amount multiplied by the Funded Percentage; provided, however, that an Eligible
Employee’s overall incentive compensation for 2010 can be reduced by the Chief Executive Officer by up to 40% based upon the individual’s overall performance and the Company’s performance on its Customer-Driven Focus and
Operational Excellence goals (subject to approval by the Committee) . To be clear, in no event, however, will an Eligible Employee’s 2010 incentive compensation exceed the funded percentage based upon the Company’s adjusted EBITDA.
Further, the Chief Executive Officer’s overall incentive compensation will also be subject to a 40% reduction using the same criteria as are used by the Chief Executive Officer for the other Eligible Employees; provided, however, that the
determination of what percentage the Chief Executive Officer’s overall incentive compensation will be reduced by shall be subject to final approval by the Committee.