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

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5125

Radio Systems Corp:

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/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_5-30-2019.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 products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 58 (Monday, March 27, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15764]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7374]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Security for the Protection of the Public Indemnification of 
Passengers for Nonperformance of Transportation; Notice of Issuance of 
Certificate (Performance)

    Notice is hereby given that the following have been issued a 
Certificate of Financial Responsibility for Indemnification of 
Passengers for Nonperformance of Transportation pursuant to the 
provisions of Section 3, Public Law 89-777 (46 U.S.C. 817(e)) and the 
Federal Maritime Commission's implementing regulations at 46 CFR part 
540, as amended:

American Classic Voyages Company, Two North Riverside Plaza, Suite 
600, Chicago, Illinois 60606

Vessel: AMERICAN QUEEN

    Dated: March 21, 1995.
Joseph C. Polking,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-7374 Filed 3-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
EXHIBIT 32.2
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
In connection with the Quarterly Report of Payless ShoeSource, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/Afor the period ending May 1, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Ullrich E. Porzig, Senior VicePresident - Chief Financial Officer andTreasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
(2)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and
(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
Date: June 7, 2005                                                              /s/  Ullrich E. Porzig   Ullrich E. Porzig   Senior Vice President,
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Pedro WILLIAMS, Appellant. Pedro WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 63246, 66444.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District.

May 23, 1995.

Douglas R. Hoff, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

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

Before SMITH, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and WHITE, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from his convictions by a jury of first degree assault and armed criminal action, and concurrent twenty-five year imprisonment as a prior and persistent offender. He also appealed from denial of his Rule 29.15 motion but has raised no issue concerning that order and has therefore abandoned that appeal. Defendant raises eight points on appeal. None have merit. A written opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
**Exhibit32.1**

**STATEMENTOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,2007 (the “Form 10-Q”) of Cardinal Financial Corporation, I, Bernard H.Clineburg, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, hereby certify pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that, to my knowledge:

(a)           the Form 10-Q fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and

(b)           the information contained in the Form10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financialcondition and results of operations of the Company and its subsidiaries as of,and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.

 
| Date: August 9, 2007   |   | /s/ Bernard H. Clineburg             |
|----------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|
|                        |   | Bernard H. Clineburg                 |
|                        |   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
Order entered August 1, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-00169-CR

No. 05-17-00170-CR

MANUEL FINO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F16-30419-Y & F16-30420-Y

ORDER

On June 16, 2017, the Court granted the requests of court reporters Vearneas Faggett and 

Trashuna Salaam for addition time to file the reporter’s record, making the reporter’s record due 

July 16, 2017. To date, no reporter’s record has been filed, and we have had no communication 

from either court reporter regarding the record in these appeals. 

We ORDER court reporters Vearneas Faggett and Trashuna Salaam to file the complete 

reporter’s records in these appeals within FOURTEEN DAYS from the date of this order. We 

caution Ms. Faggett and Ms. Salaam that the failure to file the reporter’s record by that time will 

result in the Court taking whatever remedies it has available, including ordering that they not sit 

until the complete reporter’s record in these appeals is filed.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Presiding Judge, Criminal 

District Court No. 7; to Verneas Faggett, the official court reporter of the Criminal District Court 

No. 7; to Trashuna Salaam, court reporter; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7063

FEDERICO J. HEADLEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL A. SHUPE, Corrections Institution

Operation Officer of Buckingham Correctional

Center; MAEBELLE HOLMAN-BROWN, Postal Assistant of Buckingham Correctional Center,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-96-936-R)

Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 6, 1999

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Federico J. Headley, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Federico J. Headley appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting

the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See Headley v. Shupe, No. CA-96-936-R (W.D. Va. July 7,

1998). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### George L. VERNOR, Appellant, v. MISSOURI BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, State of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 52457.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Oct. 8, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Nov. 26,1996.

George Lee Vernor, appellant pro se.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Cassandra K. Dolgin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

SPINDEN, Judge.

On August 7, 1995, prison inmate George L. Vernor filed a petition for declaratory *14judgment seeking the circuit court’s declaration that the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole’s extension of his conditional release date was illegal and void. He was serving a sentence at the Central Missouri Correctional Center in Jefferson City for possession of “burglar’s tools.”

On January 9, 1996, the circuit court clerk sent Vernor a letter notifying him that the circuit court had set the “matter for a status review and/or dismissal at 1 o’clock p.m. January 6, 1996 or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard.” The circuit court dismissed Vernor’s petition for declaratory judgment for failure to prosecute on January 26,1996. Vernor appeals.

We dismiss Vernor’s appeal because the circuit court’s dismissal does not constitute a ñnal and appealable order. Rule 67.03 says, “Any involuntary dismissal shall be without prejudice unless the court in its order for dismissal shall otherwise specify.” In this case, the circuit court did not indicate that the dismissal was with prejudice.

In a case of a dismissal without prejudice, a plaintiff typically can cure the dismissal by filing another suit in the same court; hence, a dismissal without prejudice is not a final judgment for purposes of appeal. *Wilson v. Unistrut Service Company of St. Louis, Inc.,*858 S.W.2d 729, 781 (Mo.App.1993). In most instances, a dismissal without prejudice does not constitute an adjudication on the merits. *Siampos v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Missouri,*870 S.W.2d 499, 501 (Mo.App.1994). In this case, nothing prevents Vernor from filing his petition again and in pursuing a judgment on the merits, so we conclude that this suit is not ripe for appeal at this time. The case is dismissed.

ULRICH, P.J, C.J., and EDWIN H. SMITH, J. concur.
Exhibit 32.2

                  Certification of Principal Financial Officer
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, Edward Lieberman, Chief Financial Officer of Phoenix Color Corp. (the
"Registrant"), certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 of the
Registrant ("the Report"):

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of
            the Securities and 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 Registrant.


/s/ Edward Lieberman
--------------------
Edward Lieberman
August 12, 2003

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of this report.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 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.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 03, 2024.

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.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, October 03, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A25I0043. GEORGIA KENWORTH, LLC d/b/a MHC KENWORTH - MACON v. 

ROCKY SMITH.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

24SCCV098018
exv10w1












Exhibit 10.1




	 	 	 

	

	 	Michael L. Gravelle

Corporate Executive Vice President,

Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary

601 Riverside Avenue, Jacksonville, FL 32204

Tel. 904-854-5024 | E-Mail: mgravelle@fnf.com






February 28, 2010




Mr. Lee A. Kennedy

601 Riverside Ave.

Jacksonville, FL 32204




Dear Lee:



          By mutual agreement, each of us has agreed that you will no longer serve as an executive
officer and director of Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (the “Company”) and its
subsidiaries and to terminate the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement entered into as of
September 30, 2009 by and between the Company and you (the “Employment Agreement”) effective as of
February 28, 2010. The Company shall pay to you $2,481,666.67, less any applicable withholdings,
and vest 509,166 of your Company stock options that were originally issued on October 29, 2008 as a
payment in full of all amounts due and owing to you under the Employment Agreement and in
connection with your employment with the Company. The cash payment will be made within two
business days following the approval of this letter and payment by the Company’s Compensation
Committee.


          You have agreed that you will continue to serve as a non-executive employee of the Company and
be available for periodic consulting through the earlier to occur of November 5, 2016 or the date
that you no longer own any unexercised Company stock options (the “End Date”). For such services,
you shall receive a monthly salary of $500.00 less any applicable withholdings, and medical, dental
and vision insurance coverage for you and any covered dependents, subject to any employee costs and
deductibles. Additionally, your November 5, 2009 restricted stock awards and stock options will
not be accelerated or revised and shall continue to be governed by their current terms. Also, your
vested stock options, including, without limitation, the 509,166 stock options granted on October
29, 2008, shall continue to be governed by their current terms without change in the various
applicable expiration dates. If the Company terminates your employment with the Company prior to
the End Date, each of your then unexercised vested options shall remain exercisable until its
applicable expiration date.


          Please indicate your agreement to the above by executing and returning the enclosed copy of
this letter to me.



Very truly yours,

/s/ Michael L.
Gravelle                        




Michael L. Gravelle




I agree with the terms set forth above.




	 	 	 	 	 

	By:

	 	/s/ Lee A. Kennedy	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	Name:

	 	Lee A. Kennedy	 	 
	Date:

	 	February 28, 2010
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 18


               LETTER OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS RE METHOD CHANGE


February 8, 2002


Southern Energy Homes, Inc.
144 Corporate Way
P.O. Box 390
Addison, AL 35540


RE:  FORM 10-K REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 28, 2001

This letter is written to meet the requirements of Regulation S-K calling for a
letter from a registrant's independent accountants whenever there has been a
change in accounting principle or practice.

As of October 1, 2001, the Company revised its criteria for recognizing revenue
from retail operations to require that the buyers' purchases be fully funded in
addition to meeting all other purchase criteria previously required by the
Company. Formerly, the Company's criteria for recognizing credit sales from
retail operations consisted of the following: down payment is received and the
home buyer has entered into an installment sales contract; construction of the
home is complete; and the home buyer has inspected and accepted the home. The
effect of the change in the Company's procedures is not material to the year.
This change was made primarily to conform the Company's revenue recognition
practices to that of the industry.

A complete coordinated set of financial and reporting standards for determining
the preferrability of accounting principles among acceptable alternative
principles has not been established by the accounting profession. Thus, we
cannot make an objective determination of whether the change in accounting
described in the preceding paragraph is to a preferable method. However, we
have reviewed the pertinent factors, including those related to financial
reporting, in this particular case on a subjective basis, and our opinion
stated below is based on our determination made in this manner.

We are of the opinion that the Company's change in method of accounting is to
an acceptable alternative method of accounting, which, based upon the reasons
stated for the change and our discussions with you, is also preferable under
the circumstances in this particular case. In arriving at this opinion, we have
relied on the business judgment and business planning of your management.


Very truly yours,


Arthur Andersen, LLP


                                      39
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ N O . 09
- 20
- 00081
- CR NO. 09
- 20
- 00082
- CR

__________________ JERMAINE JOSEPH DAVIS , Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No s . 18
- 30509, 18
- 30510

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION
On January 21, 2020, the trial court sentenced appellant Jermaine Joseph
Davis on convictions for aggravated sexual assault of a child and indecency with a
child. Davis filed a notice of appeal in both cases on March 4, 2020. The trial court entered certifications of the defendant’s right to appeal, in which the court certified that these are plea

- bargain cases and the defendant has waived the right of appeal.2 See Tex. R . App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The district clerk has provided the trial court’s certifications to the Court of Appeals. On March 5, 2020, we notified the parties that we would dismiss the appeals unless the appellant established grounds for continuing the appeals . Davis filed a response in each case, but he failed to establish that the trial court’s certifications
should be amended. Because the records do not contain certifications that show the defendant has the right of appeal, we must dismiss the appeals. See T ex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals.
APPEALS DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on April 7, 2020 Opinion Delivered April 8, 2020 Do Not Publish Before Kreger, Horton , and Johnson, JJ.
**Exhibit
      31.1**




**CERTIFICATION**




I,
      Michael D. Queen, certify that:




1.  I
      have
      reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Universal Capital Management,
      Inc.;




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 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 officer and I are responsible for establishing and
      maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
      Rules
      13a-l5 (e) and 15d-15 (e)) for the registrant 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 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 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 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:




(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:
                September 15, 2006
            /s/
          Michael D. Queen
              Michael
                D. Queen
              Principal
                Executive Officer
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-2018-0025-6128

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