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

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6302

Speck Pumps-Pool Products, 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/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions.

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-2018-0025-4229

Apex Sourcing & Manufacturing: 

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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6671 

DWAYNE DELESTON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(2:02-cv-3895-1-DCN)

Submitted: February 28, 2008 Decided: March 3, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dwayne Deleston, Appellant Pro Se. Miller Williams Shealy, Jr.,

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, John Charles Duane, Assistant

United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Dwayne Deleston appeals the district court’s orders

denying his motions for an evidentiary hearing, for summary

judgment and to compel. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. Deleston v. United States, No. 2:02-cv-3895-1-

DCN (D.S.C. April 18, 2007). 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
1 

### No. DA **20 -**  **0115 an**  **d No. DA 20 -**  **0151**

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

______________________ T HE C IT

Y OF MISSOULA , VS . M OUNTAIN W

ATER C OMPANY , a Montana Corporation ; AND CARLYLE INFRASTRUCTURE P ARTNERS , LP, a Delaware limit ed partnership , AND T HE E MPLOYEES OF M OUNTAIN W ATER C OMPANY , Intervenors .

__________________ APPEAL F ROM : M ONTANA F OURTH JUDICIAL D ISTRICT C OURT ,

MISSOULA C OUNTY , H ON . K AREN T OWNSEND , PRESIDING C ASE N O . DV - 32 - 2014 - 0000352 - CO

______________________________________________________________________________ **ORDER ON JOINT STIPULATION AN**  **D REQUEST TO CONSOLI DATE**  **APPEALS**

______________________________________________________________________________ 

### Carlyle Infrastructure Partners , Mountain Water Company, and the City of Missoula, pursuant to Rule 4(3) , Mont. R. Civ. P., having on May 19 , 2020 filed their Joint Stipulation and Request to Consolidate Appeals in the above matters , and good cause appearing therefore, the Court grants the Request to Consolidate Appeals for this matter and hereby consolidates Cause Nos. DA 20 - 0115 and DA 20 - 0151 under Cause No. DA 20 - 0115 . 05/19/20202



### The Court further orders that briefs in the consolidated appeals shall be filed as fo llows: 1) The City of Missoula (“City”) shall first file a single opening brief supporting its direct appeal (DA 20 - 0115) and cross - appeal (DA 20 - 0151); 2) Carlyle Infrastructure Partners (“Carlyle”) and Mountain Water Company (“Mountain Water”) shall next file a single combined brief in response to the City’s brief and in support of their cross - appeal (DA 20 - 0115) and direct appeal (DA 20 - 0151); 3) The City shall next file a single combined brief in response to Carlyle’s and Mountain Water’s brief and in reply supporting its direct appeal and cross - appeal and; 4) Carlyle and Mountain Water shall lastly file a single combined reply supporting their cross - app eal and direct appeal. Dated: May

__ , 20 20. 14644151_v1

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 19 2020
#### Robert H. GRANT, Appellant, v. ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI, Respondent.

No. 66981.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

May 23, 1995.

Donald Kenneth Anderson, Jr., St. Louis, for appellant.

Dana Kay Pulis, Asst. County Counselor, St. Louis County, Clayton, for respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Robert H. Grant, appeals from a trial court order granting summary judgment in favor of respondent, St. Louis County, Missouri, on appellant’s claim for payment of one-half of his accumulated sick leave, which appellant alleges was owing upon his exit from employment with respondent. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence, and no error of law appears. As we further find an extended opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm the circuit court’s order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum solely for the use the parties here involved has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          1,398
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  12,774
<ALLOWANCES>                                      123
<INVENTORY>                                    12,130
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               27,305
<PP&E>                                         72,205
<DEPRECIATION>                                 47,350
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 54,377
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          10,507
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           56
<OTHER-SE>                                     39,964
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   54,377
<SALES>                                        65,952
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               65,952
<CGS>                                          59,837
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  59,837
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                6,384
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 26
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (295)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (295)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (295)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.05)


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Clarence Shelton, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Baker, J.), rendered May 8, 1985, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the four "warm up” suits he allegedly stole were not properly admitted into evidence because a clear chain of custody was not established with respect to them. The defendant’s contention is without merit. At trial, the defense counsel consented to the admission of the suits into evidence. In any event, the identity of the evidence was adequately established. Those suits could not have been subject to material alterations which would not have been readily identifiable *(see, People v McGee,*49 NY2d 48, 59-60, *cert denied sub nom. Waters v New York,*446 US 942; *People v Scott,*124 AD2d 684, 685). Moreover, they were identified by an employee of the store from which they were stolen *(see, People v McGee, supra; People v Scott, supra).*Bracken, J. P., Rubin, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.
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-2018-0025-2903

Applica Water Products 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/%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

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-5777

Alo USA Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
<PAGE>


                                  Exhibit 21.1
                                   Ener1, Inc.
                                  Subsidiaries


Name                                            Jurisdiction of Incorporation

Complete Acquisition Corp.                      Florida
Boca Global, Inc.                               Florida
Boca Research International, Inc.               United States Virgin Island
Boca Research Holland B.V.                      Holland
Boca Research of Delaware, Inc.                 Delaware
Boca Research (UK) Limited                      United Kingdom
Boca Research International Holding, Ltd.       Mauritius
AppsCom, Inc.                                   Florida
Enernow Technologies, Inc.                      Florida
EnerLook Health Care Solutions, Inc.            Florida
Ener1 Technologies, Inc.                        Florida
Ener1 Battery Company                           Florida




                                       56
#### Ronald PUCKETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 56761.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

Jan. 9, 1990.

Donald J. Hager, Public Defender, Farm-ington, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Andrea K. Spillers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

DOWD, Presiding Judge.

Movant was charged with and found guilty of burglary second degree and stealing. He received two sentences of seven years, to run consecutively. This court affirmed movant’s direct appeal, *State v. Puckett,*691 S.W.2d 491 (Mo.App.1985), and movant later filed a Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. This motion was denied without an evidentiary hearing and movant appeals from this denial.

Movant’s sole point on appeal concerns the information filed by the state. That document in part charged that movant committed burglary second degree in that he “entered unlawfully in an inhabitable structure ... for the purpose of committing stealing therein.” Movant claims the information was defective in that it did not use the term “knowingly”, which is an element of burglary second degree, § 569.170 *455RSMo 1986, and thus the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the cause.

Because the sufficiency of an indictment or information is jurisdictional, it may be raised for the first time in a post-conviction relief motion, but such a claim will reverse the conviction only if the indictment or information is so defective that by no reasonable construction can it be read to charge the movant with the offense for which he was convicted. *Blackmon v. State,*639 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Mo.App.1982). The motion judge found that the information was “not so fatally flawed as to deprive the trial court of jurisdiction.” On appeal, we may only review the motion court’s decision to determine if it was clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(j).

A sufficient information must contain all the essential elements of the offense and must clearly inform defendant of the facts constituting the offense. *State v. Brown,*660 S.W.2d 694, 698 (Mo. banc 1983). If an information does not set out all the essential elements, they cannot be supplied by intendment or implication. *State v. Gilmore,*650 S.W.2d 627, 629 (Mo. banc 1983). Where the word “knowingly” is omitted from an indictment or information, it will not be invalid if it factually pleads a knowing mental state. *State v. Turner,*705 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Mo.App. 1986).

In the case at bar, the information did factually plead a knowing mental state. An indictment omitting the term knowingly was upheld in an almost identical situation in *State v. Nash,*621 S.W.2d 319, 324 (Mo. App.1981). Certainly the information was not so defective that it could not reasonably be construed to inform movant of the charges against him. We cannot hold that the motion court was clearly erroneous.

Judgment affirmed.

SIMON, C.J., and JOSEPH J. SIMEONE, Senior Judge concur.
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-2018-0025-3395

PEER Bearing Company: 

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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 4, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 17086]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8151]



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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service


Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area Citizens Advisory 
Commission Meeting

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces two upcoming meetings of the Delaware 
Water Gap National Recreation Area Citizens Advisory Commission. Notice 
of these meetings is required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Public Law 92-463).
    Meeting Date and Time: Saturday, May 13, 1995 at 9:00 a.m.
    Address: Pinchot Institute (Grey Towers), Milford, PA 18337.

    Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, September 14, 1995 at 7:00 p.m.
    Address: Wayne Dumont Administration Building, Route 519, 
Belvidere, NJ 07823.
    The agenda for the meeting consists of reports from Citizen 
Advisory Commission committees including: By-Laws, Natural Resources, 
Recreation, Cultural and Historical Resources, Intergovernmental and 
Public Affairs, Construction and Capital Project Implementation, as 
well as Special Committee Reports. Superintendent Roger K. Rector will 
give a report on various park issues. Immediately following the May 13, 
1995 meeting, Park Archeologist John Wright will present a brief 
program highlighting archeology within the recreation area.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Delaware Water Gap National Recreation 
Area Citizens Advisory Commission was established by Public Law 100-573 
to advise the Secretary of the Interior and the United States Congress 
on matters pertaining to the management and operation of the Delaware 
Water Gap National Recreation Area, as well as on other matters 
affecting the Recreation Area and its surrounding communities.
    The meeting will be open to the public. Any member of the public 
may file a written statement concerning agenda items with the 
Commission. The statement should be addressed to The Delaware Water Gap 
National Recreation Area Citizens Advisory Commission, P.O. Box 284, 
Bushkill, PA 18324. Minutes of the meeting will be available for 
inspection four weeks after the meeting at the permanent headquarters 
of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area located on River 
Road 1 mile east of U.S. Route 209, Bushkill, Pennsylvania.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Superintendent, Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, Bushkill, 
PA 18324, 717-588-2418.

    Dated: March 24, 1995.
Marie Rust,
Regional Director, Mid-Atlantic Region.
[FR Doc. 95-8151 Filed 4-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5181

MAHLE Behr USA, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request 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