alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6350

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ARTHUR LEE HAIRSTON, SR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, 

Chief District Judge. (3:00-cr-00024-JPB-1)

Submitted: March 17, 2011 Decided: April 7, 2011

Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas 

Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., appeals from the district 

court’s order granting in part his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006) 

motion for reduction of sentence. On appeal, Hairston asserts 

that the district court abused its discretion by failing to give 

him a full resentencing hearing and that the district court 

failed to provide sufficient reasoning for the chosen sentence. 

We affirm.

Hairston’s claim that he was entitled to a full 

resentencing pursuant to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 

(2005), is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. 

Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 251 (4th Cir.) (holding that “proceedings 

under § 3582(c)(2) do not constitute a full resentencing of the 

defendant”), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2401 (2009), and the 

Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 

2683, 2693 (2010) (finding that holding in Booker does not apply 

to § 3582(c)(2) proceedings). Accordingly, this claim is 

without merit. 

Hairston next asserts that the district court did not 

fully consider his circumstances prior to choosing a sentence. 

Under § 3582(c)(2), a district court “may reduce the term of 

imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in section 

§ 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable.” In United 

States v. Legree, 205 F.3d 724, 728-29 (4th Cir. 2000), we held 
3

that there exists a presumption, absent a contrary indication in 

the record, that the district court considered the § 3553(a) 

factors in denying a § 3582(c)(2) motion. Here, the record 

provides no support for Hairston’s assertions that the district 

court failed to properly consider his motion; accordingly, we 

presume that the court’s consideration of the appropriate 

factors was sufficient. See also United States v. Evans, 587 

F.3d 667, 674 (5th Cir. 2009) (holding that court is not 

required to state findings of fact and conclusions of law when 

denying § 3582 motion), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3462 (2010). 

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court’s 

judgment. We deny Hairston’s motions to appoint counsel, to 

clarify, and to order the Warden to provide writing materials. 

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
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 10.33

GARY J. SKOIEN
CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT, AND
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

                                 April 11, 2000

Andrew F. Pelmoter
Horizon Group Properties, Inc.
77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4200
Chicago, IL 60601

Dear Andrew:

      As you are aware, Horizon Group Properties, Inc signed a sales contract
with Triple Net Properties, LLC on March 24, 2000, for the purchase of seven of
our properties (i.e., Laughlin, Medford, Warrenton, Lakeshore, Holland, Monroe
and Dry Ridge) for $93.5 Million.

      Your 1999 employment letter provided for a Success Bonus if the sales
proceeds in excess of mortgage debt on the properties was at least $40 Million.
Since the sale to Triple Net failed to hit the $40 Million threshold as provided
under your 1999 employment letter, the amount, if any, payable to you was
discretionary. This letter supplements your 1999 employment letter by providing
you with a guaranteed Success Bonus if the Triple Net sales contract closes. In
determining the Success Bonus for this transaction, the company has taken into
consideration the fact that the contract was executed prior to March 31, 2000.

      You will be paid a total Success Bonus of $50,000 within thirty (30) days
following the Triple Net transaction closing date if the transaction closes and
you have not resigned prior to the closing date.

      Additionally, if some or all of the balance of the portfolio should be
sold on or before December 31, 2000, you have not resigned prior to that date,
and the total sales proceeds for all properties sold less the outstanding
mortgage debt on those properties should be greater than $40 Million, you will
receive the difference between the Success Bonus provided in you 1999 employment
letter and what you received as a Success Bonus on the closing of the Triple Net
transaction.


                                       1
<PAGE>

April 11, 2000
Page 2



      This letter supplements rather than replaces your 1999 employment letter.
The severance benefits provided in Section 3 of your employment letter shall be
paid to you if you are terminated for any reason other than cause on or before
December 31, 2000.

      Finally, I want to thank you for your past and continuing efforts on
behalf of the company. Please sign and retain this original and return one copy
of this supplemental letter agreement to me.

Sincerely,


/s/ Gary J. Skoien
---------------------------
Gary J. Skoien
Chairman, CEO and President

APPROVED AND ACCEPTED BY:


/s/ Andrew F. Pelmoter
---------------------------



                                      2
# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

November 5, 2001 

### Before

Hon . R ICHARD D. CUDAHY , Circuit Judge 

### Hon . F RANK H. E ASTERBROOK , Circuit Judge 

### Hon . ANN C LAIRE W ILLIAM S , Circuit Judge

F IRST HEALTH GROUP C ORP ., formerly known as Healthcare Compare Corp., doing business as The First Health AFFORDABLE Medical Networks, Plaintiff-Appellant , 

### No . 00-3833 v. BCE E MERGIS C ORPORATION , formerly known as United Payors & United Providers, Inc., doing business as UP&UP, Defendant-Appellee . Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 96 C 2518 James B. Moran, Judge .

Order The opinion of this court issued on October 16, 2001, is amended as follows: Page 2, line 5, delete “or ‘silent PPO’”; Page 8, six lines from the bottom, delete “silent or”; Page 9, line 4, replace “silent” with “non-directed”;No. 00-3833 Page 2 Page 9, line 10, replace “silent” with “non-directed”; Page 9, line 14, replace “silent” with “other”; Page 9, line 19, replace “silent” with “non-directed”; Page 9, second line from the bottom, replace “silent” with “non-directed”; Page 10, line 10, replace “silent” with “non-directed”; and Page 10, line 12, replace “silent” with “non-directed”.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In connection with the Annual Report of Ener1, Inc., a Florida corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), Charles Gassenheimer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his 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.





/s/ Charles GassenheimerCharles GassenheimerChief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board(Principal Executive Officer and Duly Authorized Officer)





March 10, 2011





[A signed original 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.]
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-2018-0025-5523

Tianhai Electric North America:

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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 62 (Friday, March 31, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 16654]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7866]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Indian Health Service


Standing Notice of Availability of Funds for Health Professions 
Preparatory, Pregraduate and Indian Health Scholarship (Professions) 
Programs for Fiscal Years (FY's) 1995 and 1996; Notice Correction

    In notice Doc. 95-3740 beginning on page 8663 in the issue of 
Wednesday, February 15, 1995, make the following corrections:
    1. On page 8663 in the third column, ``DATES: The application 
deadline is April 1, 1995 and 1996.'' This line should be changed to 
read ``DATES: The application deadline is April 14, 1995 and April 1, 
1996.''
    2. One page 8666 in the first column, ``Y. Radiologic Technology: 
Associate and B.S.'' This line should be changed to read ``Y. 
Radiologic Technology; Associate, BS and Certificate programs.''

    Dated: March 24, 1995.
Michel E. Lincoln,
Acting Director.
[FR Doc. 95-7866 Filed 3-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-16-M
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-2018-0025-4512

CW Bearing USA, Inc:

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
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-2018-0025-5749

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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 4, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17092-17093]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8191]



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

PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT


The Eighth Meeting of the President's Council on Sustainable 
Development (PCSD) in San Francisco, CA

SUMMARY: The President's Council on Sustainable Development, a 
partnership of industry, government, and environmental, labor and civil 
rights organizations, will convene its eighth meeting in San Francisco, 
California. Council members will further discuss the PCSD's role in 
developing recommendations to the President toward the integration of 
environmental and economic policy and, ultimately, establishing a long-
term path toward a sustainable United States by the year 2040.
    Council members will discuss at length the draft policy 
recommendations for a sustainable future, which have been developed by 
each of the PCSD's task forces. The task forces have generated these 
policy recommendations based on information [[Page 17093]] gleaned from 
programs, initiatives, and efforts currently occurring around the 
United States and observations of what business and manufacturing 
practices are sustainable.
    The Council will also report on PCSD initiatives, including the 
Vision and Principles, Challenge Statement, and Goals.
    Dates/Times: Thursday, 27 April 1995: 1:00-5:30 p.m.; Friday, 28 
April 1995: 9:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
    Place: Officer's Club, Presidio of San Francisco, San Francisco, 
California.
    Status: Open to the Public.
    For Further Information Contact: Sarah McCourt, Director of 
Communications, 202-408-5296.
Molly Harriss Olson,
Executive Director, President's Council on Sustainable Development.
[FR Doc. 95-8191 Filed 4-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-10-M
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Aaron REGANS, Appellant.

No. 67701.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Jan. 23, 1996.

Robert E. Steele, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, St. Louis, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Breck K. Burgess, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for Respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and CRANDALL and KAROHL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals after trial on charges of murder first degree and armed criminal action which resulted in guilty verdicts for murder second degree and armed criminal action. The sole issue is admissibility of statements by defendant to police officers. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Edward D. CURTIS, Appellant.

Nos. WD 48953, WD 50386.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 22, 1995.

Ellen H. Flottman, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before BERREY, P.J., and ULRICH and ELLIS, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Edward Curtis appeals his conviction of five counts of sodomy and one count of abuse of a child after a jury trial. He also appeals denial of his motion for post conviction relief under Rule 29.15. No precedential purpose in publishing a written opinion existing, the convictions and the denial of his motion for posteonvietion relief are affirmed by summary order.

*106The judgment of conviction and the denial of the postconvietion Rule 29.15 motion are affirmed. Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

 

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

I, James W.Klingler, certify for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to thebest of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report of TROY Group, Inc. on Form 10-Q forthe quarterly period ended February 29, 2004 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 andthat information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of Troy Group, Inc.

 

 
| Date:  May 12, 2004 |                                                         |
|--------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|                     |                                                         |
|                     |                                                         |
|                     | By:                                                          | /s/James W. Klingler |   |
|                     | Name: James W.  Klingler                                     |
|                     | Title: Vice  President Finance & Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
MOTOR MODEL: FK280

VIEW 1 VIEW 2 VIEW 3
<PAGE>   1

                                                                  Exhibit 10.3.7

                         AMENDMENT #6 TO CONTRACT 00117

                      ELECTRONIC LOTTERY TICKET DISPENSERS

1.    Contract 00117 between the Missouri Lottery and On-Point Technology
      Systems shall be renewed for the period of July 1, 1998 through June 30,
      1999 subject to the acceptance of this document by the Missouri Lottery.

2.    All other terms and conditions of the contract shall remain in effect,
      except as modified by any other agreements and/or amendments.


/s/ Brian J. Roberts  Sr. Vice President    7/18/98
-------------------------------------       ---------------
Contractor's Authorized Signature           Date


/s/ James R. Scroggins                      7/21/98
-------------------------------------       ---------------
Missouri Lottery Authorized Signature       Date
PUBLIC VERSION
$[*********] [******]

$[*********]

INPUT

20.0

$[*********]

[******]

[******]

0.05

PUBLIC VERSION
Consistent with USTR's Section 301 notice, OMRON Management Center of America, Inc. requests

confidential treatment for the information designated as business confidential in this submission. Such

information consists of information that would not customarily be released to the public, including

business or trade secrets regarding production costs and processes, data on sales, product characteristics

customers, destinations, and other product, sales, and cost-related business secrets. Business confidential

information has been indicated herein by enclosing it in single brackets (“[ ]”). A public version of these

comments is also being filed with all confidential information removed.

OMRON in the US is the only designer of this product and only supplier of this component.

ACCESSORY SWITCH KNOB,ACSW is a molded plastic switch containing an electrical switch, and is

used only for automotive purposes as a switch for a motor to fold a seat. It is only used for further

assembly of components which go into domestic automobile production. which is specified by auto

manufacturer.

This product is not a target of the US Administration's 301 investigation regarding Intellectual Property

concerns. This is not a concern to IP transfer and impressment. This product contains no IP of interest

related to autonomous vehicle production.

The tariff action ultimately poses a risk of significant damage to OMRON, the domestic

automobile industry, and ultimately the US consumer as a increase in price. Like in the case of similar

approvals for vehicle components at the HTS level, OMRON views this product in the same manner.

Immediate movement of production to a US manufacturer or another country would pose significant

re-tooling costs, significant amounts of time , and approvals pertaining to consumer automobile safety

standards are costly and would take a significant amount of time to obtain.

OMRON Management Center of America, Inc. believes that CBP can easily exclude the ACCESSORY

SWITCH KNOB,ACSW in question based solely on the product description. The following are draft

CBP exclusion instructions:

"ACCESSORY SWITCH KNOB,ACSW Rectangular switch face with a "Y"-shaped cross section -

Made of plastic resin -PC CLR(Power Seat fold)" Dimensions 34.54mm X17.95mm X 13.00mm."

This information will be contained on the invoice from the supplier

PUBLIC VERSION
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-2018-0025-4892

Arrowhead Electrical Products, 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