alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 63 (Monday, April 3, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 16886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8048]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Information Collections Under Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has been sent the 
following collection(s) of information proposals for review under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 USC Chapter 35) and the 
Paperwork Reduction Reauthorization Act since the last list was 
published. Entries are grouped into submission categories, with each 
entry containing the following information:

(1) the title of the form/collection;
(2) the agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
Department sponsoring the collection;
(3) who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief 
abstract;
(4) an estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of 
time estimated for an average respondent to respond;
(5) an estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with 
the collection; and,
(6) an indication as to whether Section 3504(h) of Public Law 96-511 
applies.

    Comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this 
notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated 
response time, should be directed to the OMB reviewer, Mr. Jeff Hill on 
(202) 395-7340 AND to the Department of Justice's Clearance Officer, 
Mr. Robert B. Briggs, on (202) 514-4319. If you anticipate commenting 
on a form/collection, but find that time to prepare such comments will 
prevent you from prompt submission, you should notify the OMB reviewer 
AND the Department of Justice Clearance Officer of your intent as soon 
as possible. Written comments regarding the burden estimate or any 
other aspect of the collection may be submitted to Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
Washington, DC 20503, AND to Mr. Robert B. Briggs, Department of 
Justice Clearance Officer, Systems Policy Staff/Information Resources 
Management/Justice Management Division Suite 850, WCTR, Washington, DC 
20530.

New Collection

(1) DNA Testing and Typing Capacity Survey: Included in the 
Solicitation for the Forensic DNA Laboratory Program.
(2) None. National Institute of Justice, United States Department of 
Justice.
(3) Primary=State, Local, or Tribal Government. This survey will be 
distributed to state and local governments as part of the solicitation 
for proposals to develop or improve the capability to analyze DNA in 
forensic laboratories.
(4) 203 annual respondents at 4 hours per response.
(5) 812 annual burden hours.
(6) Not applicable under Section 3504(h) of Public Law 96-511.

    Public comment on this item is encouraged.

    Dated: March 28, 1995.
Robert B. Briggs,
Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 95-8048 Filed 3-31-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-21-M
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-2018-0025-5780

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

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4857

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. Daishae S. HILL, Appellant.

Nos. WD 50638, WD 52074.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 18, 1996.

Emmett D. Queener, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Attorney General, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before LOWENSTEIN, P.J., and SPINDEN and SMART, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Daishae S. Hill appeals his convictions for two counts of robbery in the first degree, six counts of armed criminal action, one count of assault in the second degree, one count of burglary in the first degree, and two counts of kidnapping. He also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion. We affirm the convictions and the denial of post-conviction relief. Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 5, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 17381]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8373]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service


Nonconventional Source Fuel Credit; Publication of Inflation 
Adjustment Factor, Nonconventional Source Fuel Credit, and Reference 
Price for Calendar Year 1994

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Publication of inflation adjustment factor, nonconventional 
source fuel credit, and reference price for calendar year 1994 as 
required by section 29 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 29).

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

SUMMARY: The inflation adjustment factor, nonconventional source fuel 
credit, and reference price are used in determining the availability of 
the tax credit for production of fuel from nonconventional sources 
under section 29 of the Internal Revenue Code.

DATES: The 1994 inflation adjustment factor, nonconventional source 
fuel credit, and reference price apply to qualified fuels sold during 
calendar year 1994.

INFLATION FACTOR: The inflation adjustment factor for calendar year 
1994 is 1.9207.

CREDIT: The nonconventional source fuel credit for calendar year 1994 
is $5.76 per barrel-of-oil equivalent of qualified fuels.

PRICE: The reference price for calendar year 1994 is $13.19. Because 
the above reference price does not exceed $23.50 multiplied by the 
inflation adjustment factor, the phaseout of credit provided for in 
section 29(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code does not occur for any 
qualified fuel based on the above reference price.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

     For the inflation factor and credit--Thomas Thompson, CP:R:R:AR:E, 
Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 
20224, Telephone Number (202) 874-0585 (not a toll-free number).
    For the reference price--David McMunn, CC:DOM:P&SI:6, Internal 
Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20224, 
Telephone Number (202) 622-3110 (not a toll-free number).
Judith C. Dunn,
Associate Chief Counsel (Domestic).
[FR Doc. 95-8373 Filed 4-4-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 21

- 00027

- CV

T RINITY F INANCIAL S ERVICES , LLC

, Appellant

V

.

J ASON M AHANAY AND A MBER M AHANAY , Appellees §

§

§

§ On Appeal from t he 96th District Court

of Tarrant County ( 096

- 313075

- 19 )

January 27, 2022

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is reversed

, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion

.

It is further ordered that Appellees Jason Mahanay and Amber Mahanay shall

pay all costs of this ap peal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Wade Birdwell Justice Wade Birdwell
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.

47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 11, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 05-61017

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

ARMANDO LUNA,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R GONZALES, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

Petition for Review from the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

A75 900 744

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Armando Luna petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)

affirming the immigration judge’s decision to deport him based on his status as an illegal alien and a
-2-

1987 controlled substance conviction. Luna argues that the doctrine of laches prevents his

deportation, but we do not reach Luna’s argument because his petition for review was not timely

filed.

A notice of appeal from the BIA must be filed 30 days after the date of the final order of

removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). Luna’s deadline was October 3, 2005; however, we extended the

deadline to October 10, 2005, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. We posted notice for filings to be

sent to this Court’s temporary Houston address as the New Orleans courthouse had been vacated.

Luna erroneously mailed his notice of appeal to New Orleans. While he mailed it on September 29,

2005, eleven daysin advance ofthe new deadline, the notice did not make its way to the clerk’s office

until November 7, 2005, and was therefore filed late. Due to the unique situation created by

Hurricane Katrina, both parties were asked to brief the issue of whether Luna’s notice of appeal was

timely filed.

Luna’s brief does not argue for an extension of time, nor does he ask for equitable tolling of

the deadline. Instead, he incorrectly asserts–in one footnote in his Statement of Jurisdiction–that his

notice of appeal was timely filed because it was mailed before the filing deadline. This argument has

no merit. FED. R. APP. P. 25(a)(2)(A) (“Filing may be accomplished by mail addressed to the clerk,

but filing is not timely unless the clerk receives the papers within the time fixed for filing.”); see

Thompson v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 76 F.3d 530, 534 (4th Cir. 1996) (“[T]he

unincarcerated litigant who decides to rely on the vagaries of the mail must suffer the consequences

if the notice of appeal fails to arrive within the applicable time period.”).

Since Luna did not brief, even when asked, an equitable argument for his delay in filing due

to Hurricane Katrina, he has waived such considerations. See Edwards v. Johnson, 209 F.3d 772,
-3-

776 n.1 (5th Cir. 2000) (deeming issue waived when not argued in initial brief); Justiss Oil Co., Inc.

v. Kerr-McGee Refining Corp., 75 F.3d. 1057, 1067 (5th Cir. 1996) (waiving issue of not argued in

the body of the brief).

Accordingly, Luna’s petition for review is DISMISSED for lack of being timely filed.
---

EXHIBIT 31.2RULE 13A-14(A)/15D-14(A)
CERTIFICATION

I, Ming Wai Anthea Chung, certify that:

(1) I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB/A of Solar
Enertech Corp. (the Small Business Issuer).

(2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this report.

(3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
Small Business Issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

(4) The Small Business Issuers other certifying officer and I
are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange
Act), Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Small Business Issuer and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the Small Business Issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Small Business Issuer s
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Small Business
Issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
Small Business Issuers most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected,
or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Small Business Issuer's
internal control over financial reporting; and

(5) The Small Business Issuers other certifying officer and I
have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the Small Business Issuers auditors and the audit
committee of the Small Business Issuers board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the Small Business Issuers ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the Small Business
Issuers internal control over financial reporting.

|Date: July 3, 2007 | By: | /s/ Ming Wai Anthea Chung
|------------------ | --- | -------------------------
|                   |     |                          
|                   |     | Ming Wai Anthea Chung    
|                   |     | Chief Financial Officer  

---
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Randy Joe AMELUNKE, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 65769.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

March 7, 1995.

Craig Allen Johnston, Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Traci J. Sanders, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his conviction from a bench trial for the offense of manufacturing more than five grams of marijuana, a controlled substance, § 195.211, RSMo Cum. *232Supp.1992. Defendant claims that evidence was seized pursuant to a search warrant in which the affidavit in support was insufficient to establish probable cause for the issuance of the warrant, and, therefore, the evidence should not have been admitted. We affirm the trial court. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no prece-dential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. Rule 30.25(b).
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Robert P. Akins, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Cymer, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Registrant”), herebycertifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

**1.    **The Registrant’s annual report on Form 10-K towhich this certification is attached as Exhibit 99.1 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934.

**2.    **The information contained in the Report fairlypresents in all material respects the results of operations of the Registrantfor the periods covered by the Report and the Registrant’s financial conditionas of the end of those periods.

 

 

 
| Dated: March 27,  2003 |   | /s/  ROBERT  P. AKINS           |   |
|------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|--------|
|                   |   | Robert P. Akins,  Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Cymer, Inc. and will be retained by Cymer,Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

----
Form of Swiss Mandatory Retirement Benefit Agreement



 Exhibit 10.2 

[Date] 
 [Name and Title of
Officer} 
 Re: Swiss Mandatory Retirement Benefit Agreement 

Dear
                                        :

 This letter is to reflect your agreement with ACE Limited (the “Company”), and is effective as of July 18, 2008.

 Due to the redomestication of ACE Limited from the Cayman Islands to Switzerland, you will receive a portion of your salary and bonus for
service performed in Switzerland and certain Swiss legal requirements will apply to this income. Pursuant to one such requirement, you must participate in a Swiss-based retirement savings program, which mandates employee contributions. However, you
already participate in one or more retirement plans, which are based on your full salary and bonus paid from ACE Limited and all subsidiaries (“Compensation”). 

As we discussed, you do not want the Swiss-based Compensation to be reduced due to participation in the Swiss retirement savings program and the Company
desires to avoid providing a duplicative benefit to you. For mutual consideration and intending to be bound, you and the Company agree as follows: 

1. The Company agrees to reimburse you (after an appropriate tax “gross-up”) for contributions made to the Swiss retirement savings program;
and 
 2. You assign to the Company your entire present and future interest in the payments made under the Swiss retirement savings program
attributable to the contributions that are reimbursed under paragraph 1 (the “Swiss Retirement Benefits”). However, to the extent that such assignment is not effective, you agree to pay to the Company an amount equal to the Swiss
Retirement Benefits paid in any calendar year; provided that the amount due from you shall be reduced by the excess, if any, of the amount of any taxes due from you with respect to such payments minus the amount of the tax benefits to you
attributable to such payments to the Company; and further provided that such payments to the Company are to be made within the first 90 days of the calendar year following the calendar year in which the Swiss Retirement Benefits are received.

 The terms of our agreement set forth in this letter will be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, without regard to
the conflict of law provisions of any state or other jurisdiction. 







 If this letter reflects your understanding of the agreement between you and the Company, please sign, date,
and return a copy of this letter to me. 
  

			
	 Very truly yours,

	
	  

	By:	 	 Phillip B. Cole

		 	Global Human Resources Officer


 I agree that this
letter reflects my understanding 
 of the agreement between me and ACE Limited: 

 

	
	  

	[Name of Officer]

 Date signed by Executive:
                                        ,
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4856

Enerpac:

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/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.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 the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

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