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 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3187

Zettler Controls 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

_05.09.19.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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Bobby OSBEY, Appellant. Bobby OSBEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. WD 44861, WD 47441.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Nov. 2, 1993.

Lorry L. Kohrs, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before HANNA, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and FENNER, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from a conviction of sale of a controlled substance (§ 195.211, RSMo Supp. 1992) and sentence of ten years. Appeal from denial of Rule 29.15 motions abandoned.

Judgments affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
exhibit101.htm


EXHIBIT 10.1







 


Patrick A. Norton


330 84th St., No. 4


Miami, FL  33141












July 12, 2011












Board of Directors of Harmony Metals, Inc.







Ladies and Gentlemen:







This is to confirm the terms of our agreement with respect to the repurchase of the shares of common stock of Harmony Metals, Inc., a Florida corporation (the “Company”), issued to me by the Company for a purchase price in the amount of $3,000.  In consideration of the payment of the purchase price, I shall deliver the stock certificate representing one million shares of common stock of the Company issued to me (the “Shares”) in proper form for transfer to the Company.  I represent and warrant that I have good and valid title to the Shares, free and clear of any liens, claims or encumbrances on the Shares.







This letter embodies the entire agreement and understanding between us with respect to the subject matter of this letter and supersedes all prior discussions, understandings and agreements relating to the Shares and the subject matter of this letter.  This terms of this letter shall not be altered or amended except by an instrument in writing signed by both of us and shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of Florida.







Please countersign this letter in the space provided below.







Sincerely,


 







/s/ Patrick A. Norton                        


     Patrick A. Norton












Acknowledged and agreed to this


12th day of July, 2011:







HARMONY METALS, INC.












By:  /s/ Olivia G. Ruiz                                                          


Name:   Olivia G. Ruiz


Title:      Chief Executive Officer and President
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5000 

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 

provide funding for school resource officers, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2023 

Mr. GOTTHEIMER (for himself, Mr. FITZPATRICK, Mr. KIM of New Jersey, 

Ms. MACE, Mr. BACON, Mr. DAVIS of North Carolina, Mr. MOSKOWITZ, 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Ms. GARCIA of Texas, Mr. TONY GONZALES

of Texas, Mr. COSTA, and Mr. THOMPSON of California) introduced the 

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

A BILL 

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 

Act of 1968 to provide funding for school resource officers, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Strengthening Our 

5 Schools Act of 2023’’ or the ‘‘SOS Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5000 IH

1 SEC. 2. FUNDING FOR SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS. 

2 Section 1101(a)(11) of the Omnibus Crime Control 

3 and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10261(a)(11)) 

4 is amended— 

5 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking 

6 ‘‘$1,047,119,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 

7 through 2009’’ and inserting ‘‘$1,097,119,000 for 

8 each of fiscal years 2024 through 2033’’; and 

9 (2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting after ‘‘of 

10 the purposes of part Q’’ the following: ‘‘, and not 

11 less than $50,000,000 shall be allocated for grants 

12 pursuant to applications submitted by units of local 

13 government or law enforcement agencies for the pur14 poses described in section 1701(b)(12)’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
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-2018-0025-4649

SPM Flow Control, Inc. DBA Weir SPM:

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
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

LARRY PARK, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-3032

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed September 16, 2020. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk 

County; Wayne Durden, Judge.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk 

County; Wayne Durden, Judge.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee and Laurie Benoit-Knox, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KHOUZAM, C.J., and BLACK, JJ., and CASE, JAMES, R., ASSOCIATE SENIOR 

JUDGE, Concur.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 2045** 

In re: ROBERT LIONEL SISK , Petitioner
.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
. ( 1:01

- cr - 00052

- MR

- 14)

Submitted : November 20, 2012 Decided: November 26, 2012

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion
.
Robert Lionel Sisk, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Robert Lionel Sisk is serving the 276

- month sentence imposed after he was found guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute co caine and methamphetamine
. Sisk petitions for a writ of mandamus , or other forms of extraordinary relief, * seeking an order vacating his sentence and remanding to the district court for resentencing in light of Johnson v. United States , 130 S. Ct. 1265 (2010), and Begay v. United States , 553 U.S. 137 (2008)
. We conclude that Sisk is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Ma ndamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances, when “the petitioner has no other adequate means to obtain relief to which there is a clear and indisputable right.” In re Blackwater Sec. Consulting, L.L.C. , 460 F.3d 576, 592 (4t h Cir. 2006) (internal quotations omitted) ; see also Kerr v. U
. S
. Dist. C our t , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976)
. “Courts are extremely reluctant to grant a writ of mandamus.” In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 82 7 (4th Cir. 1987).
T he relief sought by Sisk is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in

* Alternatively, Sisk asks us to grant him a writ of audita querela or coram nobis , to recall the mandate in his criminal case, or for leave to amend his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. We conclude that Sisk is not entitled to any of these forms of relief
.3 forma pauperis, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma terials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
3XEOLF9HUVLRQRI%&,

3803&+$0%(5&$67,1*35(6685(&217$,1,1*$$/80,180



3,$==$52%(57

35,&(3803&203$1<

2WKHU

12

3XEOLF9HUVLRQRI%&,


<(6

12

 .*

 .*

,03257,1*7+,63$57)520&+,1$&2676

385&+$6,1*5$:0$7(5,$/$1'0$&+,1,1*,7'20(67,&$//<&267
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-2018-0025-3317

ECM Industries 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/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
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-2018-0025-5053

Scosche Industries, Inc:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20. 

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

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

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
Exhibit 21.1



SUBSIDIARIES OF GATEWAY, INC.



|                                            |  |                  
|------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------
|Subsidiary Name                             |  | Jurisdiction     
|                                            | 
|Advanced Logic Research, Inc.               |  | Delaware         
|                                            | 
|AD Technologies LLC                         |  | Delaware         
|                                            | 
|Cowabunga Enterprises, Inc. dba Gateway.com |  | Delaware         
|                                            | 
|eMachines Asia, Ltd                         |  | Hong Kong        
|                                            | 
|eMachines Europe B.V.                       |  | Netherlands      
|                                            | 
|eMachines Internet Group, Inc.              |  | Delaware         
|                                            | 
|eMachines Ltd.                              |  | England and Wales
|                                            | 
|eMachines, Inc.                             |  | Delaware         
|                                            | 
|Gateway Accessory Stores, Inc.              |  | Delaware         
|                                            | 
|Gateway Asia, Inc.                          |  | Delaware         
|                                            | 
|Gateway Canada Corp.                        |  | Canada           
|                                            | 
|Gateway Companies, Inc.                     |  | Delaware         
|                                            | 
|Gateway Computers Ireland Limited           |  | Ireland          
|                                            | 
|Gateway France SAS                          |  | France           
|                                            | 
|Gateway International Computers Ltd.        |  | Ireland          
|                                            | 
|Gateway International Holdings, Inc.        |  | Delaware         
|                                            | 
|Gateway Japan, Inc.                         |  | Delaware         
|                                            | 
|Gateway KK                                  |  | Japan            
|                                            | 
|Gateway Manufacturing LLC                   |  | Delaware         
|                                            | 
|Gateway Professional LLC                    |  | Delaware         
|                                            | 
|Gateway Sub II LLC                          |  | Delaware         
|                                            | 
|Gateway Technologies, Inc.                  |  | Delaware         
|                                            | 
|GTW de Mexico S. de R.L. de C.V.            |  | Mexico           
|                                            | 
|GW Holdings LLC                             |  | Delaware         
|                                            | 
|Spotware Technologies, Inc.                 |  | Delaware
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of Appeals2881317-NOV-201009:13 AM
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-2018-0025-4441

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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 66 (Thursday, April 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 17532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8458]



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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Security for the Protection of the Public Financial 
Responsibility To Meet Liability Incurred for Death or Injury to 
Passengers or Other Persons on Voyages; Notice of Issuance of 
Certificate (Casualty)

    Notice is hereby given that the following have been issued a 
Certificate of Financial Responsibility to Meet Liability Incurred for 
Death or Injury to Passengers or Other Persons on Voyages pursuant to 
the provisions of Section 2, Public Law 89-777 (46 U.S.C. 817(d)) and 
the Federal Maritime Commission's implementing regulations at 4 CFR 
part 540, as amended: Radisson Seven Seas Cruises, Inc., and Diamond 
Cruise, Inc., 600 Corporate Drive, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33334.

    Vessel: Radisson Diamond.

    Dated: April 3, 1995.
Joseph C. Polking,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-8458 Filed 4-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
## NUMBER 13 - 2 1 - 00 1 46 - CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ JOSE SAENZ CERDA , A ppellant ,
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A ppellee

.

____________________________________________________________ On a ppeal from the 24 th District Court of Ca lhoun County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________ 

## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Longoria, Hinojosa, and Tijerina Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria This matter is before the Court on appellant’s motion for court

- appointed counsel and on the Court’s own motion. Appellant attempted to perfect an appeal from a conviction for tampering with ev idence, corpse . We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.2 Sentence in this matter was imposed on February 1, 2018

. On May 11 , 2021, a notice of appeal was filed . On May 11 , 2021 , the C lerk of this C ourt notified appellant that it appeared that the appeal was not timely perfected. Appellant was advised that the appeal would be dismissed if the defect was not corrected within ten days fro m the date of receipt of the Court ’ s directive. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.2 provides that an appeal is perfected when notice of appeal is filed within thirty days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court unless a motion for new trial is timely filed

. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 26.2(a)(1). Where a timely motion for new trial has been filed, notice of appeal shall be filed within ninety days after the sentence is imposed or suspended in open court. T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 26.2(a)(2). The time w ithin which to file the notice may be enlarged if, within fifteen days after the deadline for filing the notice, the party files the notice of appeal and a motion complying with Rule 10.5(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 26 .3. This Court ’ s appellate jurisdiction in a criminal case is invoked by a timely filed notice of appeal. Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Absent a timely filed notice of appeal, a court of appeals does not obtain jurisd iction to address the merits of the appeal in a criminal case and can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Appellant may be entitled to an out

- of

- time appeal by filing a post

- conviction writ of habeas corpus returnable to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals; however, the availability of that remedy is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

.3 P ROC

. A NN . art. 11.07, § 3(a) ; see als o Ex parte Garcia , 988 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Accordingly, t he appeal along with the motion for court

- appointed appellate counsel are each dismissed for want of jurisdiction

.
NORA L. LONGORIA Justice Do not publish. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b).
D elivered and filed on the 26th day of August, 2021.