alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Gary Lee REYNOLDS, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 16425.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two.

Jan. 30, 1990.

Carr L. Woods, Monett, for movant-ap-pellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Stewart M. Freilich, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Movant Gary Lee Reynolds appeals from the trial court’s denial, after evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.151 motion seeking to vacate a judgment and sentence pronounced by that court in 1979. The conviction, based on a jury verdict, was affirmed on appeal. *State v. Reynolds,*608 S.W.2d 422 (Mo.1980).

The instant motion was filed July 1, 1988, and was untimely. Since the sentence was pronounced prior to January 1, 1988, and no prior motion was filed pursuant to Rule 27.26, the instant Rule 29.15 motion, to have been timely, must have been filed “on or before June 30, 1988.” Rule 29.15(m).

The time limitations contained in Rule 29.15 are valid and mandatory. *Day v. State,*770 S.W.2d 692, 695[1] (Mo. banc 1989). Movant’s failure to file the motion on or before June 30, 1988, “constitutes a complete waiver of the right to proceed under [Rule 29.15].” *Id.,*at 696[3].

Although movant, on June 24, 1988, filed a motion, it was unsigned. It did not comply with the signature and verification requirements of Criminal Procedure Form 40 and was thus not “substantially in the form” of Criminal Procedure Form 40. It was therefore a nullity. See *Batson v. State,*774 S.W.2d 882, 884[2] (Mo.App.1989), where an unverified motion, under similar Rule 24.035, was held to be a nullity. See also *Quinn v. State,*776 S.W.2d 916, 918[2] (Mo.App.1989); *Mills v. State,*769 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Mo.App.1989).

Although the trial court heard the motion on its merits and denied it, its correct course would have been to enter an order of dismissal. Pursuant to Rule 84.14, this court hereby sets aside the order of the trial court and, in lieu thereof, enters the following order: “This proceeding is dismissed for the reason that it was not filed within the time limit prescribed by Rule 29.15(m), V.A.M.R.”

As so amended, the judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

1

. All references to rules are to Missouri Rules of Court, V.A.M.R.
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-2018-0025-6484

OK International, 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
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                        
                        Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements 
(Forms S-8 No. 33-66250, 33-80425, 33-89036, 333-18337) of Aseco Corporation of 
our report dated May 9, 1997, except for Note M as to which the date is May 23, 
1997, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of 
Aseco Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended 
March 30, 1997.


                                                         
                                                    ERNST & YOUNG LLP



Boston, Massachusetts
June 23, 1997
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-2018-0025-5503

Fluor Enterprises, 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
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-2018-0025-5927

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
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      516
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   516
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  72,616
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              516
<BONDS>                                         72,100
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    72,616
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 516
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
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-2018-0025-6174

Fluor Enterprises, 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
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-2018-0025-6759

Crane Pumps & Systems: 

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
Exhibit 99.3

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 Horizon Group Properties, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending
September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David R. Tinkham, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

|Dated: November 12, 2002 |  | /s/DAVID R. TINKHAMDavid R. Tinkham
Chief Financial Officer
|------------------------ |  | -----------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Antoinne OWENS, Appellant. Antoinne OWENS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 64150, 66945.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

May 2, 1995.

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

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Mary Moulton Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the judgment entered following his conviction for possession of a controlled substance in a correctional facility in violation of § 217.360.1(1) RSMo 1994. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

The variance between the trial court’s oral and written pronouncements of sentence was a clerical error which the trial court corrected in a nunc pro tunc order. Thus, Defendant’s challenge of his sentence is moot. Furthermore, we have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find *213that the judgment of the motion court was not clearly erroneous. A written opinion would have no precedential value nor would it serve any jurisprudential purpose. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          16,939
<SECURITIES>                                    18,286
<RECEIVABLES>                                      283
<ALLOWANCES>                                       178
<INVENTORY>                                        182
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,746
<PP&E>                                           1,265
<DEPRECIATION>                                     722
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  40,093
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,464
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        61,876
<OTHER-SE>                                    (24,281)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    40,093
<SALES>                                            664
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   664
<CGS>                                            1,208
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,208
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,333
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   136
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  26
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,692)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,692)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,692)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.33)
        

</TABLE>
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-2018-0025-5781

Alo Tennessee 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
1

The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-1358

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Jose Guadalupe Arevalo, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: August 28, 2002 

 Filed: August 30, 2002

___________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jose Guadalupe Arevalo pled guilty to conspiring to distribute in excess of 5

kilograms of cocaine and in excess of 50 grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(A), and to two counts of aiding and abetting the

distribution of a mixture or substance containing cocaine (4 kilograms as to one count

and 3 kilograms as to the other), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)

and 18 U.S.C. § 2. At sentencing, the district court1

 rejected Arevalo’s argument that

sections 841(b)(1)(A) and (B) were facially unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New
2

 Arevalo also argues that our reasoning in United States v. Aguayo-Delgado,

220 F.3d 926, 934 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1026 (2000), is faulty, but only

this court en banc may revisit the case. See United States v. Wright, 22 F.3d 787, 788

(8th Cir. 1994).

-2-

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and sentenced Arevalo to 10 years imprisonment and 5

years supervised release. Arevalo appeals, renewing his constitutional argument. We

affirm. 

Arevalo’s argument is foreclosed by our recent decisions upholding the facial

constitutionality of § 841(b)(1)(A) and (B) after Apprendi, see United States v.

Sprofera, No. 01-3674, 2002 WL 1726817, at *3 (8th Cir. July 26, 2002); United

States v. Carter, 294 F.3d 978, 980-81 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam), and further, the

Supreme Court has now held that judges do not violate Apprendi in resolving factors

that increase the statutory minimum sentence. See Harris v. United States, 122 S. Ct.

2406, 2414 (2002).2

 

Accordingly, we affirm. 

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

September 17, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-5866

Hirsch Glass Corp: 

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

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

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

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

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