alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 56 (Thursday, March 23, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15287-15288]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7114]



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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy


Naval Research Advisory Committee; Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 
U.S.C. App. 2), notice is hereby given that the Naval Research Advisory 
Committee will meet on April 10-14, 1995. The meeting will be held at 
the Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet Headquarters, Pearl Harbor, 
Oahu, HI; Pacific Missile Range Facility, Kauai, HI; and Maui High 
Performance Computer Center and Haleakala Observatory, Maui, HI. The 
meeting will commence at 9 a.m. and terminate at 5 p.m. on April 10; 
commence at 8 a.m. and terminate at 5 p.m. on April 11; commence at 12 
Noon and terminate at 5 p.m. on April 12; commence at 12:30 p.m. and 
terminate at 8 p.m. on April 13; and commence at 9 a.m. and terminate 
at 2:30 p.m. on April 14, 1995. All sessions of the meeting will be 
closed to the public.
    The purpose of the meeting is to expose the Committee members to 
fleet operations and complexities in the Pacific Theater. The agenda 
will consist of briefings, discussions and demonstrations related to 
joint interoperability, forward presence, C\4\I, quality of life, 
logistics, maintenance, training and tactics, theater air defense, 
cooperative engagement, reduced ship manning, system life cycle cost 
reduction, and relevant technology issues. These briefings, 
discussions, and demonstrations will contain classified information 
that is specifically authorized under criteria established by Executive 
order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense and are, in 
fact, properly classified pursuant to such Executive order. The 
classified and nonclassified matters to be discussed are so 
inextricably intertwined as to preclude opening any portion of the 
meeting.
    Accordingly, the Secretary of the Navy has determined in writing 
that the public interest requires that all sessions of the meeting be 
closed to the public because they will be concerned with matters listed 
in section 552b(c)(1) of title 5, United States Code.
    For further information concerning this meeting contact: Ms. Diane 
Mason-Muir, Office of Naval Research, Naval Research Advisory 
Committee, 800 North Quincy Street, Arlington, VA 22217-5660, Telephone 
Number: (703) 696-6769.

    [[Page 15288]] Dated: March 17, 1995.
L.R. McNees,
LCDR, JAGC, USN, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-7114 Filed 3-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
Exhibit
32.2





Ener1,
Inc.


1540
Broadway, Suite 25C


New York,
New York 10036





March 11,
2010





Securities
and Exchange Commission


100 F
Street, NE


Washington,
DC 20549





Re:
Certification of Principal Financial Officer Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Sec.
1350





Dear
Ladies and Gentlemen:





In
connection with the accompanying annual report on Form 10-K of Ener1, Inc., for
the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, I, Gerard A. Herlihy, Chief Financial Officer of Ener1, Inc., hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1)
            such
      annual report on Form 10-K of Ener1, Inc., for the year ended December 31,
      2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
    and




2)
            the
      information contained in such annual report on Form 10-K of Ener1, Inc.,
      for the year ended December 31, 2009, fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Ener1,
      Inc.




/s/ Gerard A. HerlihyGerard
      A. Herlihy
              Chief
      Financial Officer
              (Duly
      Authorized Principal Financial and Principal
              Accounting
      Officer and Duly Authorized
Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Ener1, Inc. and will be
retained by Ener1, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.





This
certification is being “furnished” as Exhibit 32.2 to Ener1, Inc.’s annual
report and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) or otherwise subject to the
liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in
any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as
expressly set forth by specific reference in such a filing.
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-2018-0025-3385

American Zettler, 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
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MELINDA GABRIELLA VALENZUELA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

D. W. MASOON; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-17406 

D.C. No. 4:17-cv-00441-FRZPSOT 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Frank R. Zapata, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 10, 2018**

Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Arizona state prisoner Melinda Gabriella Valenzuela appeals pro se from the 

district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging claims arising under Title 

II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) related to her conditions of 

confinement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 13 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-17406 

dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th 

Cir. 2011). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Mahoney v. 

Sessions, 871 F.3d 873, 877 (9th Cir. 2017), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Valenzuela’s claims against defendants 

in their individual capacities because as individuals, they are not liable under the 

ADA. See Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002) (“The ADA 

applies only to public entities[.]”).

Dismissal of Valenzuela’s ADA claim against defendant Corizon was proper 

because Valenzuela failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See 

Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings 

are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff still must present factual allegations 

sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 

609 F.3d 1011, 1021 (9th Cir. 2010) (elements of a Title II ADA claim).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Valenzuela’s motions to compel (Docket Entry Nos. 9 and 11) are denied.

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7582

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LARRY EUGENE REED,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District

Judge. (CR-96-22)

Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: January 29, 2002

Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Eugene Reed, Appellant Pro Se. Michael R. Smythers, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Larry Eugene Reed appeals the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We

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

no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. See United States v. Reed, No. CR-96-22 (E.D. Va. filed

July 9, 2001; entered July 10, 2001). 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
<PAGE>   1

                                                                  Exhibit 10.3.2

                         AMENDMENT #1 TO CONTRACT 00117
                      ELECTRONIC LOTTERY TICKET DISPENSERS

1.    Contract 00117 between the Missouri Lottery and Lottery Enterprises Inc
      shall hereby be amended as follows:

      Page 6, Paragraph 13 shall be added as follows:

      13.   The contractor shall be responsible for loss of or damages to
            vending machines leased by the Missouri Lottery in cases where the
            loss of or damages to the vending machines is not a result of
            negligence or an intentional act by the Missouri Lottery or the
            Missouri Lottery's retailer.

2.    All other terms and conditions of the contract shall remain the same.


/s/ Catherine Winchester                    13 March 1995
-------------------------------------       ---------------
Contractor's Authorized Signature           Date


/s/ James R. Scroggins                      3-17-95
-------------------------------------       ---------------
Missouri Lottery Authorized Signature       Date
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-2018-0025-2931

NSK Corporation:

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

General Counsel
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------


    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 SpeechSwitch, Inc. (the
"COMPANY"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007, as filed with
the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "REPORT"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, I, Bruce R.
Knef, hereby certify, pursuant to and solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

     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.



                                      By: /s/ Bruce R. Knef
                                          --------------------------
                                          Bruce R. Knef
                                          President, Chief Executive Officer and
                                          Chief Financial Officer

May 14, 2007
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 17, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-5176

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.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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

April 12, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5562

TSB Wisconsin Corporation: 

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

_04.15.19.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,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
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-2018-0025-5491

SGRE, 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
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Cleophus PARKER, Appellant.

No. WD 40177.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Dec. 5, 1989.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 2, 1990.

John A. Klosterman, Columbia, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., John P. Pollard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before MANFORD, P.J., and SHANGLER and CLARK, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

This is a consolidated appeal involving a direct appeal from a jury conviction for kidnapping, in violation of § 565.110, RSMo 1986; second degree robbery, in violation of § 569.030, RSMo 1986; three counts of forcible rape, in violation of § 566.030, RSMo 1986, and two counts of forcible sodomy, in violation of § 566.060, RSMo 1986, and the denial of post-conviction relief sought pursuant to Rule 29.15.

The judgment for the criminal convictions is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

The judgment for denial of post-conviction relief is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
The Honorable Cynthia Holcomb Hall, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth * Circuit, sitting by designation.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 96-2510EM

_____________ Stephen Martin, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern v. * District of Missouri. * Michael Groose, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: November 18, 1998

Filed: November 27, 1998

_____________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, FAGG, and HALL, Circuit Judges. *

_____________ PER CURIAM. Stephen Ma rtin asserts three claims in an effort to reverse the district court' s denial of Martin's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. Based o n Ma rtin's failure to file a state court proceeding for postconviction relief, we conclude that two of Martin's claims are procedurally barred. The district court correctl y rejected Martin 's remaining claim because the trial court's refusal to declare a mistrial didnot violate Martin's due process rights. An extended discussion of Martin' s arguments would serve no useful purpose because the controlling law is clear and an-2-

opinion would lack precedent ial value. We thus affirm the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 13, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4945

Duravant LLC and FMH Conveyors Americas:

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 and 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
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 27, 2010 

d0419 

Order 

 

April 27, 2010 

140380 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140380 

 COA: 284893 

Jackson CC: 07-004510-FC 

HAROLD JAMES CARGILL, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 15, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.