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 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2513

Curtis Instruments, 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
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-2018-0025-5766

Alo Tennessee 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
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 11 - 00489 - CR

PATRICK LAMONT JOHNS ON APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT CO URT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- A jury convicted Appellant Patrick Lamont Johnson of the s tate jail felony offense of burglary of a building and assessed his punishment at two years’ confinement. The trial c ourt sentenced him accordingly. Johnson’s court

- appointed appellate counsel ha s filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds f

or relief. 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). We gave Johnson an opportunity to file a pro se brief, which he did

. The State declined the opportunity to file a brief in response. Prior to filing his pro se brief in response to his appointed counsel’s Anders brief , this court ha d already denied Johnson’s two previous motions requesting substitution of counsel

. Now, despite this court ’s having granted a time extension to file his brief and Johnson ’s having filed his pro se brief, he has filed a third motion to this court requesting substitution of appellate counsel. As with his previous two motions, Johnson cites no authority to show that he is entitled to the assistance of a different appointed attorney. See Malcom v. St ate , 628 S.W.2d 790, 791 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1982) (discussing defendant’s burden regarding entitlement to change of counsel)

. Once an appellant’s court

- appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and f ulfills the requirements of Anders , this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State , 904 S.W.2d 920, 922

– 23 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1995, no pet. ). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). We have carefully reviewed the record , counsel’s brief , and Johnson’s brief . We agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without3

merit; we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State , 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Furthermore, we have reviewed Johnson’ s third motion requesting substitution of counsel and find nothing in the motion that causes us to retreat from our previous two orders denying this request. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw , deny Johnson’ s third motion for substitution of counsel, and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

BILL MEIER JUSTICE
PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b )
DELIVERED: October 25 , 201 2
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5124 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to increase the length of the postemployment ban on lobbying by certain former senior executive branch 

personnel from one year to 2 years. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 1, 2023 

Ms. PORTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to increase the 

length of the post-employment ban on lobbying by certain 

former senior executive branch personnel from one year 

to 2 years. 

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 ‘‘Restrict Conflicted 

5 Lobbying Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5124 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN LENGTH OF POST-EMPLOYMENT BAN 

2 ON LOBBYING BY CERTAIN FORMER SENIOR 

3 EXECUTIVE BRANCH PERSONNEL. 

4 (a) INCREASE IN LENGTH OF BAN.—Section 207(c) 

5 of title 18, United States Code, is amended— 

6 (1) in the heading, by striking ‘‘ONE-YEAR’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘TWO-YEAR’’; and 

8 (2) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘within 1 year 

9 after the termination’’ and inserting ‘‘within 2 years 

10 after the termination’’. 

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

12 this section shall apply with respect to any individual who, 

13 on or after the date of the enactment of this Act, leaves 

14 a position to which subsection (c) of section 207 of title 

15 18, United States Code, applies. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
#### Ex parte Michael B. ROOSTH.

No. 94-0154.

Supreme Court of Texas.

June 2, 1994.

Rehearing Overruled Sept. 8, 1994.

Shawn Casey, Houston, for relator.

Judy Kaderka (Przyborski) (Warne), Earle S. Lilly, Houston, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The trial court found relator in contempt for failure to pay child support and sentenced him to 180 days in the Harris County jail. Although the sentence was punitive rather than coercive, the trial court did not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt of relator’s ability to make the support payments. The commitment order also purported to deny relator credit for good behavior. We released relator on bond pending final disposition of his petition. We grant in part the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Relator claims that the trial court imposed a criminal sentence without due process of law. Due process requires that an alleged criminal contemnor not shoulder the burden of persuasion to disprove an element of the offense of contempt. *Hicks v. Feiock,*485 U.S. 624, 632-33, 108 S.Ct. 1423, 1429-30, *30199 L.Ed.2d 721 (1988). However, whether ability to pay court-ordered child support is an element of the offense of contempt, or is instead an affirmative defense to that charge, is a question left to state law. *See id.*at 629, 641 n. 13, 108 S.Ct. at 1428, 1434 n. 13. In Texas, inability to pay child support is an affirmative defense to the offense of contempt that must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 14.40(g), (h) (Vernon Supp.1994); *Ex Parte Johns,*807 S.W.2d 768, 772 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1991, orig. proceeding) (distinguishing Hicks). The burden of proof and evidentia-ry standard imposed by the trial court under section 14.40(g), (h) are consistent with due process.

The trial court found relator in contempt for failure to pay child support on three separate occasions and sentenced him on each count to incarceration for sixty days without reduction for good behavior. A trial court has no authority to limit the operation of the good behavior credit. *Kopeski v. Martin,*629 S.W.2d 743, 745 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982); *cf. Ex Parte Acly,*711 S.W.2d 627, 628 (Tex.1986). We hold that the phrase “with no reduction of sentence for good behavior,” appearing in each count of the commitment order, is void. The commitment order and judgment are otherwise valid in every respect. *See generally Kubena v. Hatch,*144 Tex. 627, 193 S.W.2d 175, 177 (1946). We presume that the sheriff will properly exercise his discretion and give relator credit for good behavior if appropriate. *See*Tex.Code CrimProCAnn. art. 42.032 (Vernon Supp. 1994).

Accordingly, pursuant to Texas Rule of App. Procedure 122, a majority of the court grants in part the petition for writ of habeas corpus, such that the provision barring good behavior credit is stricken. All other requested relief is denied; we revoke relator’s bond and remand him to the custody of the Harris County sheriff to serve the remainder of his sentence.
**EXHIBIT 32(a)**

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of OPENLiMiT, Inc. (“Registrant”) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“Report”), I, Henry Dattler, chief executive officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge: 

(1)     This 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 this Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of 

        operation of the Registrant. 

/s/ Henry Dattler

Henry Dattler 

Chief Executive Officer

November 14, 2005 

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Registrant for the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing. 

A signed original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

----
Trinad
Capital, L.P.153 East 53rd Street, 48th FloorNew
York, NY 10022

September 23,
2005

Robert Ellin
Chief Executive OfficerU.S. Wireless Data, Inc.53 East 53rd Street, 48th Floor
New York, NY 10022Dear Mr. Ellin:

Trinad
Capital, L.P. (Trinad) hereby agrees to loan U.S. Wireless Data,
Inc. (the Company) up to a principal amount of $100,000 (the
Loan) at any time and from time to time prior to the Companys
consummation of a Next Financing (as hereinafter defined). Trinad shall make
advances to the Company in such amounts as the Company shall request from time
to time. The Loan shall bear interest at a simple rate per annum equal to 1%
(one percent) over the prime rate of interest as published from time to time in
the Wall Street Journal (the Prime Rate). The entire
outstanding principal amount of the Loan and any accrued interest thereon shall
be due and payable by the Company upon, and not prior to, the consummation of a
sale of securities (other than a sale of shares of the Companys Common
Stock, $0.01 par value per share (the Common Stock), to
officers, directors or employees of, or consultants to, the Company in
connection with their provision of services to the Company), to a third party or
parties with proceeds to the Company of not less than $200,000 (a Next
Financing).

Please
acknowledge the Companys acceptance of the terms of this letter agreement
by signing where indicated below.

| | Sincerely,
Trinad Capital, L.P.By: /s/ Jay Wolf     Name: Jay Wolf     Title:
Managing Director of     Trinad Advisors GP, LLC,     General Partner of Trinad Capital L.P.     
Trinad Advisors GP, LLCBy: /s/ Jay Wolf     Name: Jay Wolf     Title:
Managing Director
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Acknowledged
and agreed to:U.S. Wireless Data, Inc.By: /s/ Robert Ellin     Name:
Robert Ellin     Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
PUBLIC VERSION
$[*********] [******]

$[*********]

INPUT

20.0

$[*********]

[******]

[******]

0.05

PUBLIC VERSION
Consistent with USTR's Section 301 notice, OMRON Management Center of America, Inc. requests

confidential treatment for the information designated as business confidential in this submission. Such

information consists of information that would not customarily be released to the public, including

business or trade secrets regarding production costs and processes, data on sales, product characteristics

customers, destinations, and other product, sales, and cost-related business secrets. Business confidential

information has been indicated herein by enclosing it in single brackets (“[ ]”). A public version of these

comments is also being filed with all confidential information removed.

OMRON in the US is the only designer of this product and only supplier of this component.

ACCESSORY SWITCH KNOB,ACSW is a molded plastic switch and is

used only for automotive purposes as a switch for a motor to fold a seat. It is only used for further

assembly of components which go into domestic automobile production. which is specified by auto

manufacturer.

This product is not a target of the US Administration's 301 investigation regarding Intellectual Property

concerns. This is not a concern to IP transfer and impressment. This product contains no IP of interest

related to autonomous vehicle production.

The tariff action ultimately poses a risk of significant damage to OMRON, the domestic

automobile industry, and ultimately the US consumer as a increase in price. Like in the case of similar

approvals for vehicle components at the HTS level, OMRON views this product in the same manner.

Immediate movement of production to a US manufacturer or another country would pose significant

re-tooling costs, significant amounts of time , and approvals pertaining to consumer automobile safety

standards are costly and would take a significant amount of time to obtain.

OMRON Management Center of America, Inc. believes that CBP can easily exclude the ACCESSORY

SWITCH KNOB,ACSW in question based solely on the product description. The following are draft

CBP exclusion instructions:

"ACCESSORY SWITCH KNOB,ACSW rectangular switch face with a tapered wedge profile; image of

a seat reclining on the front face "Plastic knob for Accessory Switch - Made of plastic resin -PC CLR

(Seat Fold knob). Dimensions are 34.07mm X 17.97mm X 12.00 mm"

This information will be contained on the invoice from the supplier

PUBLIC VERSION
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

NO. 03-08-00635-CR

Edgar R. Hernandez, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-DC-04-302732, HONORABLE WILFORD FLOWERS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

We overrule Hernandez’s motion for rehearing, withdraw our opinion and judgment

issued January 9, 2009, and substitute the following in its place.

Edgar Hernandez seeks to appeal from a judgment of conviction for indecency with

a child by contact. Sentence was imposed on April 9, 2007. No motion for new trial was filed. The

deadline for perfecting appeal was therefore May 9, 2007. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). Notice

of appeal was filed on October 9, 2008. While Hernandez filed a motion for an out-of-time appeal

in the trial court on September 26, 2008, neither this Court nor the trial court has authority to grant

an out-of-time appeal. See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App.

1991) (out-of-time appeal from final felony conviction may be sought by filing writ of habeas corpus
2

with court of criminal appeals pursuant to article 11.07 of code of criminal procedure). Hernandez

does not contend that the court of criminal appeals has granted him an out-of-time appeal.

Under the circumstances, we lack jurisdiction to dispose of the purported appeal in

any manner other than by dismissing it for want of jurisdiction. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208,

210 (Tex. Crim. App.1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522-23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). The

appeal is dismissed.

___________________________________________

Diane M. Henson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Waldrop and Henson

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: March 5, 2009

Do Not Publish
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5172 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5172

To amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to reduce the 
  eligibility requirement for direct farm real estate loans, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 8, 2023

    Mr. Nunn of Iowa (for himself and Ms. Crockett) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to reduce the 
  eligibility requirement for direct farm real estate loans, 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. REDUCTION OF THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENT FOR DIRECT FARM 
              REAL ESTATE LOANS UNDER THE CONSOLIDATED FARM AND RURAL 
              DEVELOPMENT ACT.

    Section 302(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act 
(7 U.S.C. 1922(b)) is amended--
            (1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
            ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may make a direct loan 
        under this subtitle only to a farmer or rancher who has at 
        least 1 year of experience substantially participating in the 
        management and business operations of a farm or ranch, as 
        determined by the Secretary, or has other acceptable education 
        or experience for a period of time, as determined by the 
        Secretary.''; and
            (2) in paragraph (4)--
                    (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``3-year 
                requirement in paragraph (1) to 1 or 2 years'' and 
                inserting ``1-year requirement in paragraph (1) to 6 
                months''; and
                    (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``3-year'' and 
                inserting ``1-year''.
                                 <all>
```
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



I, Rick Wilson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Blacksands Petroleum, Inc., for the fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Blacksands Petroleum, Inc.



Date:  March 20, 2009
        By:  
/s/ Rick Wilson


Rick Wilson, Principal Financial Officer




---
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-50137, 333-90293, 333-56606, 333-89184,
333-102147, 333-105193 and 333-106594) and the Registration Statements on Form
S-3 (File Nos. 333-65035, 333-48540, 333-71958, 333-84914, 333-99033,
333-102186, 333-106589, and 333-111818) of our report dated February 27, 2004,
relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedule which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Los Angeles, California
March 10, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 28, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15910]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7538]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. ER95-412-000]


Dayton Power & Light Co.; Notice of Filing

March 22, 1995.
    Take notice that on March 13, 1995, Dayton Power & Light Company 
tendered for filing an amendment in the above-referenced docket.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 
20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before March 31, 1995. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-7538 Filed 3-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M