alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20 2 2

- 3218

_____________________________
M IRANDA J EAN V ARNUM , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bradford County

. James M

. Colaw , Judge

. March 27, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. See Parks v. State , 371 So. 3d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023), review granted , SC202 3

- 1355, 2024 WL 370043 (Fla. Jan. 31, 2024).

L EWIS , R OWE , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Lori A. Willner , Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham
, Assistant Attorney General
, Tallahassee , for Appellee

.
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-2018-0025-6097

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
EXHIBIT 21


                   SUBSIDIARIES OF GREG MANNING AUCTIONS, INC.


The subsidiaries of Greg Manning Auctions, Inc., which are wholly owned
except where indicated, are as follows:

                                                                Jurisdiction of
Name                                                            Incorporation
-------------------------------------------------               ---------------
A-Mark Precious Metals, Inc.                                    New York
Spectrum Numismatics International, Inc.                        California
Teletrade, Inc.                                                 Delaware
Ivy & Manning Philatelic Auctions, Inc.                         Texas
Greg Manning Galleries, Inc.                                    New York
H.R. Harmer, Inc.                                               Delaware
Kensington Associates, LLC                                      California
Greg Manning Nutmeg Auctions, Inc.                              Delaware
North American Certified Trading, LLC                           California
Spectrum Auction Services, LLC                                  Delaware
Superior Sports Auctions, LLC                                   Delaware
Bowers & Merena Galleries, LLC                                  Delaware
Kingswood Coin Auctions, LLC                                    Delaware
Spectrum PMI, Inc.(1)                                           Delaware
Greg Manning Auctions Real Estate, LLC                          New York
Corinphila Auktionen AG (3)                                     Switzerland
Heinrich Kohler Berliner Briefmarken-Auktionen GmbH(2)          Germany
Heinrich Kohler Auktionshaus, GmbH & Co.KG                      Germany
Heinrich Kohler Briefmarkenhandel, GmbH & Co. KG                Germany
Heinrich Kohler Verwaltungs, GmbH                               Germany
Auctentia Deutschland, GmbH                                     Germany
Auctentia Subastas, S.L.                                        Spain
GMAI Auctentia Central de Compras, S.L.U.                       Spain
GMAI-Auctentia Europe, S.L.                                     Spain
John Bull Stamp Auctions, Ltd.                                  Hong Kong

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

(1)  80% owned by Greg Manning Auctions, Inc.; 20% owned by Auctentia, S.L.,
     effective July 15, 2005

(2)  66.67% owned by Greg Manning Auctions, Inc.

(3)  65% owned by Greg Manning Auctions, Inc.; effective July 31, 2005, 100%
     owned by Greg Manning Auctions, Inc.
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-2018-0025-5068

Scosche Industries, 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 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
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 Quarterly Report of Vystar Corporation (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned, William R. Doyle, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, and Linda S. Hammock, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, each do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
the best of our knowledge:


(1)
            The Report fully complies with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
  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/ William
      R. DoyleWilliam
      R. Doyle
                Chairman,
      President and Chief Executive Officer
                November
      16, 2009/s/ Linda
      S. HammockLinda
      S. Hammock
                Acting
      Chief Financial Officer
                November
      16, 2009




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




The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not
to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Vystar Corporation,
whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 26, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-5234

Bergstrom, Inc: 

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/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September_2019.pdf. 

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 exclusion notice. The scope of the exclusion is governed by the scope of the 10-digit HTSUS 

subheadings and product descriptions in the annex to the product exclusion notice, and not by the 

product descriptions set out in any particular request for exclusion. 

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
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-2018-0025-6141

Yanfeng US Automotive Interior Systems I LLC:

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
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A2372. CURTIS LEE ROGERS v. THE STATE. 

Curtis Lee Rogers has been charged with three counts of forgery. Rogersfiled

a “Request for Production Order to Resolve Pending Charges, Accusations, or

Detainers,” which the trial court denied on April 22, 2015. Rogers filed a notice of

appeal from that order on June 10, 2015. We lack jurisdiction.

1

The order that Rogers seeks to appeal is not a final order. Accordingly, he was

required to follow the interlocutory application procedures set forth in OCGA § 5-6-

34 (b), which include obtaining a certificate of immediate review from the trial court,

to obtain appellate review at this time. 

Moreover, pretermitting whether a direct appeal was authorized fromthe order

denying Rogers’s motion, his notice of appeal is untimely. A notice of appeal must

be filed within 30 days of the entry of the order sought to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-

38 (a). The proper and timely filing of the notice of appeal is an absolute requirement

to confer appellate jurisdiction upon this Court. Rowland v. State, 264 Ga. 872, 872

(1) (452 SE2d 756) (1995). Here, Rogers’s untimely notice of appeal was filed 49

days after entry of the order he seeks to appeal.

Based on the foregoing, we lack jurisdiction over this direct appeal, which is

hereby DISMISSED. 

1 This case was transferred to the Supreme Court, along with related Case No.

A16A2373. The Supreme Court dismissed the related case and transferred the instant

matter back to this Court. 

August 04, 2016
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

08/04/2016
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-2018-0025-5231

Robert Bosch 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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AS FILED
AS PART OF THE ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-04-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-02-1996
<CASH>                                          27,178
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,434
<ALLOWANCES>                                       125
<INVENTORY>                                     58,360
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               127,395
<PP&E>                                         112,471
<DEPRECIATION>                                  45,641
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 195,733
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,953
<BONDS>                                         72,806
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            98
<OTHER-SE>                                      80,780
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   195,733
<SALES>                                        318,790
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               325,149
<CGS>                                          248,728
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   91,459
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (164)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,544
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (21,418)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,146
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (25,564)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (25,564)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.62)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.62)
        

</TABLE>
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-2018-0025-4403

CW Bearing USA, Inc:

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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Willie Speed, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Carey, J.), rendered July 10, 1987, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree and sentencing him as a second violent felony offender to an indeterminate prison term of from 4 to 8 years, is unanimously affirmed.

In this street robbery of an 18-year-old complainant by defendant and two others, defendant contends that his guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

The evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient. The elements of robbery in the second degree, forcibly taking property while aided by another, were sufficiently established. Complainant testified that defendant and two others surrounded him in the lot. Defendant ordered him to enter an empty bus as one of the other men displayed a razor, and once inside, defendant and another of the men argued whether the complainant’s chain was genuine. Defendant then took complainant’s chain and jacket. Based on all the credible evidence, a finding different from the jury’s would have been unreasonable and, therefore, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495).

In its *Sandoval*ruling, the court did not abuse its discretion by permitting questioning about 2 of defendant’s 12 prior convictions and limiting the People on a 1985 attempted robbery conviction to asking whether defendant forcibly stole property, without reference to elements relevant to the present case, i.e., display of a firearm and being aided by another. The court further permitted cross-examination as to the other conviction for jostling. Plainly mindful of the competing concerns in a *Sandoval*application, the court struck a compromise eminently fair to defendant.

Defendant’s contention that the court’s "no adverse inference” charge prejudiced him has not been preserved for *160review since no objection was made at trial *(see, People v Autry,*75 NY2d 836, 839). In any event, the challenged instructions were a correct statement of the law *(People v Diggs,*151 AD2d 359). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Asch, Wallach and Smith, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 06-7745 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

IZELL GRANVILLE, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior

District Judge. (1:02-cr-00366-WLO; 1:05-cv-00520-WLO)

Submitted: March 29, 2007 Decided: April 4, 2007

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Izell Granville, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Izell Granville, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and the

district court’s order denying Granville’s motion for

reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Granville has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED