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 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5736

Kyungshin Lear Sales and Engineering 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 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 31.2

CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Adi
Raviv, certify that:

1.  I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of U.S. Wireless Data, Inc.;

2.
Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary 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 registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The
registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we 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 registrant, 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 registrant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 registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and

5. The
registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrant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 registrant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 registrants internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: October
14, 2003

/s/ Adi
Raviv

Adi Raviv
Executive Vice President and
          Chief Financial Officer
          (Principal Financial Officer)

---
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 95-40268

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KATHY LYNN WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:94-CR-62-3

_________________________________________________________________

January 16, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kathy Lynn Williams appeals her convictions of conspiracy to

possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine and possession with

intent to distribute crack cocaine. She contends solely that the

evidence was insufficient to support her convictions. We have

reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and hold that the

evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find Williams
-2-

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Bell, 678 F.2d

547, 549 (5th Cir. 1982)(en banc), aff'd, 462 U.S. 356 (1983).

A F F I R M E D.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5194 

To prohibit Federal funds from being used to pay the salary of John Luman 

Smith. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 11, 2023 

Mr. OGLES (for himself, Mr. CRANE, and Mr. MOONEY) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To prohibit Federal funds from being used to pay the salary 

of John Luman Smith. 

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 ‘‘Yanking Outlays for 

5 an Unethical, Ruthless Enterprise that Fraudulently Im6 pedes Robust Electoral Debate Act’’ or the ‘‘YOU’RE 

7 FIRED Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5194 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING TO PROVIDE A SALARY 

2 TO JOHN LUMAN SMITH. 

3 No Federal funds may be used to provide a salary 

4 for John Luman Smith, Special Counsel for the Depart5 ment of Justice. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

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

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,2008 (the “Form 10-Q”) of Cardinal Financial Corporation (the “Company”),I, Mark A. Wendel, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, herebycertify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

(a)           the Form 10-Q fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended; and

 

(b)           the information contained in the Form 10-Qfairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial conditionand results of operations of the Company and its subsidiaries as of, and for,the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.

 

 
| Date:   August 8, 2008 | /s/  Mark A. Wendel                 |
|----------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
|                             | Mark  A. Wendel                     |
|                             | Executive  Vice President and Chief |
|                             | Financial  Officer                  |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5227 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5227

   To prohibit the Department of Defense from acquiring computers or 
printers manufactured by or from entities controlled by the Government 
       of the People's Republic of China, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            August 18, 2023

  Mr. Bacon introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit the Department of Defense from acquiring computers or 
printers manufactured by or from entities controlled by the Government 
       of the People's Republic of China, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Chinese Electronics Defense Act of 
2023''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON COMPUTERS OR PRINTERS ACQUISITIONS INVOLVING 
              ENTITIES OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY CHINA.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense may not acquire any 
computer or printer if the manufacturer, bidder, or offeror is a 
covered Chinese entity.
    (b) Applicability.--This section shall apply only with respect to 
contracts or other agreements entered into, renewed, or extended after 
the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Covered chinese entity.--The term ``covered Chinese 
        entity'' means an entity that the Secretary of Defense, in 
        consultation with the Director of the National Intelligence or 
        the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, determines 
        to be an entity owned, controlled, directed, or subcontracted 
        by, affiliated with, or otherwise connected to, the Government 
        of the People's Republic of China.
            (2) Manufacturer.--The term ``manufacturer'' means--
                    (A) the entity that transforms raw materials, 
                miscellaneous parts, or components into the end item;
                    (B) any entity that subcontracts with the entity 
                described in subparagraph (A) for the entity described 
                in such subparagraph to transform raw materials, 
                miscellaneous parts, or components into the end item;
                    (C) any entity that otherwise directs the entity 
                described in subparagraph (A) to transform raw 
                materials, miscellaneous parts, or components into the 
                end item; or
                    (D) any parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate of 
                the entity described in subparagraph (A).
                                 <all>
```
#### Randall E. RALSTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 52151.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 18, 1996.

Judith C. LaRose, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, John M. Morris, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before LAURA DENVIR STITH, P.J., and ULRICH and SMART, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Randall Ralston appeals the dismissal of his Rule 24.035 posteonviction motion to vacate his judgment of conviction for possession of a controlled substance, section 195.202, RSMo Supp.1993, and sentence of twenty years imprisonment for being filed untimely. No precedential purpose exists in publishing a written opinion. The order dismissing the motion is affirmed by summary order. Rule 84.16(b).
**EXHIBIT
      32.1/32.2**


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 Quarterly Report of Blacksands Petroleum, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended July 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Darren
      Stevenson, Chief Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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.




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





/s/
      Darren Stevenson


Name:
      Darren Stevenson


Title:  
      Chief Executive and Financial Officer


Date:  
      September 19, 2006








20
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5344

Kyungshin Lear Sales and Engineering 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 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
Amdmt No. 2 to the Power Integrations, Inc. 1997 Outside Directors Stock Option



 Exhibit 10.2 

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE 

POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC. 

1997 OUTSIDE DIRECTORS STOCK OPTION PLAN 

POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC. (the “Company”), having established the 1997 Outside Directors Stock Option Plan, as amended
through July 28, 2009, (the “Plan”), amended the Plan on April 12, 2010, as follows: 
 1.
Section 6.1(a) of the Plan was amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 
 “(a)
Initial Option. Each person who is (i) serving as an Outside Director on the Effective Date, or (ii) first elected or appointed as an Outside Director after the Effective Date shall be granted an Option to purchase thirty thousand
(30,000) shares of Stock on the Effective Date or the date of such initial election or appointment, respectively (an “Initial Option”), provided that no Initial Option shall be granted from April 12, 2010 until such
time as the Board determines that Initial Options shall no longer be suspended under the Plan. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, an Initial Option shall not be granted to a Director of the Company who previously did not qualify as an
Outside Director but subsequently becomes an Outside Director as a result of the termination of his or her status as an Employee.” 

2. Section 6.1(b) of the Plan was amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 

“(b) Annual Option. Each Outside Director (including any Director who previously did not qualify as an
Outside Director but who subsequently becomes an Outside Director) shall be granted an Option to purchase ten thousand (10,000) shares of Stock on each of his or her “Anniversary Dates”, provided such person remains an Outside
Director on such Anniversary Date (an “Annual Option”) and provided that no Annual Option shall be granted from January 27, 2009 until such time as the Board determines that Annual Options shall no longer be suspended
under the Plan. The Anniversary Date for an Outside Director who was serving on the Board on the Effective Date shall be the date which is twelve (12) months after the Effective Date and successive anniversaries thereof. The Anniversary Date
for an Outside Director who is elected or appointed to the Board after the Effective Date shall be the date which is twelve (12) months after such election or appointment and successive anniversaries thereof.”
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Darvon WRIGHT, Appellant. Darvon WRIGHT, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 64826, 68150.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

April 30, 1996.

Robert E. Steele, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

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

Before CRAHAN, P.J., and CRANDALL and DOWD, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from his conviction for one count of conventional second-degree murder, § 565.021 RSMo 1994, and one count *120of armed criminal action, § 571.015, for which he was sentenced to concurrent terms of life imprisonment. Defendant also appeals denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error are without merit. No error of law appears, and the findings and conclusion of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The judgments are affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
#### EDWIN RHOADS, JR., and Wife, ELIZABETH E. RHOADS, v. LLOYD O. HUGHES and Wife, JEANETTE E. HUGHES.

(Filed 24 February, 1954.)

Wills § 31—

The courts may construe the language of a will only when the language is so uncertain, vague, ambiguous, or conflicting that it creates a doubt as to the true intent of testator. If the language used is clear and has a recognized legal meaning, there is no room for construction, and the recognized legal meaning of the language must be given effect.

Appeal by defendants from *Parker (J. W.), J.,*November Term, 1953, BeRtie.

Affirmed.

*535Civil action to compel specific performance of a contract to purchase real property.

The contract is admitted. Defendants decline to take title for the reason plaintiff Elizabeth Rhoads does not possess and cannot convey a marketable fee simple title to the property they contracted to purchase.

*Pritchett & Qooke for plaintiff appellees.*

*Stuart A. Curtis for defendant appellants.*

Per Curiam.

The jurisdiction of the courts may be invoked to construe a will when, and only when, the language used in the will is so uncertain, vague, ambiguous, or conflicting that it creates a doubt as to the true intent of the testator. If the devise is couched in language which is clear and has a recognized legal meaning, there is no room for construction. The applicable rule of law must control. Such is the case here. The *feme*plaintiff survived the testator. Manifestly, upon his death she became the owner of the *locus*in fee, subject to the preceding life estate devised to her mother.

The judgment entered in the court below is

Affirmed.
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-2018-0025-4773

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 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

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-5184

Nissan North America, 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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel