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

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6975

Detroit Thermal Systems:

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
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-30965 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GEORGE EDWIN SINGLETON, also known as Jack Singleton, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-CV-323-H

- - - - - - - - - - June 24, 1998 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * George Singleton appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. Singleton argues that the factual basis was insufficient to support his guilty plea for use of a weapon during a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The factual basis indicates that Singleton conspired with others to commit a car-jacking, participated in the car-jacking, and rode in the vehicle with his co-conspirators and a weapon. Singleton’s co-No. 97-30965 -2- conspirator used the weapon to commit the car-jacking. Accordingly, Singleton’s § 924(c) conviction can be sustained under a Pinkerton v. United States , 328 U.S. 640 (1946) theory of liability. See United States v. Fike , 82 F.3d 1315, 1328 (5th Cir. 1996). Singleton’s conviction can also be sustained under an aiding and abetting theory. See United States v. Burton , 126 F.3d 666, 670 (5th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying the § 2255 motion.
AFFIRMED.
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-2018-0025-6437

Schnitzer Steel Industries, 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

_04.15.19.pdf.

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

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

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

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

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

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

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

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

April 12, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4605

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

_04.15.19.pdf.

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

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

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

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

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

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

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

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-7261

Nissan North America, 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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We hereby  consent to the  incorporation  by reference in the  Registration
Statement on Form S-8 of FLAG Financial Corporation of our Independent Auditors'
Report  dated  January 31,  1997,  which  appears in the 1996  Annual  Report to
Stockholders  of FLAG  Financial  Corporation  incorporated  by reference in the
Annual  Report on Form 10-K of FLAG  Financial  Corporation  for the year  ended
December 31, 1996.

/s/ Robinson, Grimes & Company, P.C.
Certified Public Accountants


Columbus, Georgia
March 12, 1997
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-2018-0025-4587

Zipline International Inc: 

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

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

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

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

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September.pdf. 

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

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

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

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

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

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

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

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18410-18411]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8860]



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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Dkt. C-3565]


IVAX Corp.; Prohibited Trade Practices, and Affirmative 
Corrective Actions

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Consent Order.

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

SUMMARY: In settlement of alleged violations of federal law prohibiting 
unfair acts and practices and unfair methods of competition, this 
consent order permits, among other things, IVAX, a Florida corporation, 
to acquire Zenith Laboratories, except for Zenith's rights to market or 
sell extended release generic verapamil under Zenith's exclusive 
distribution agreement with G.D. Searle & Co. Respondent is also 
[[Page 18411]] required, for ten years, to obtain Commission approval 
before acquiring any stock in any entity that manufactures, or is an 
exclusive distributor for another manufacturer of, extended release 
generic verapamil in the United States.

DATES: Complaint and Order issued March 27, 1995.\1\

    \1\Copies of the Complaint and the Decision and Order are 
available from the Commission's Public Reference Branch, H-130, 6th 
Street & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Melissa Heydenreich, FTC/S-2224, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2543.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On Thursday, January 5, 1995, there was 
published in the Federal Register, 60 FR 1782, a proposed consent 
agreement with analysis In the Matter of IVAX Corporation, for the 
purpose of soliciting public comment. Interested parties were given 
sixty (60) days in which to submit comments, suggestions or objections 
regarding the proposed form of the order.
    No comments having been received, the Commission has ordered the 
issuance of the complaint in the form contemplated by the agreement, 
made its jurisdictional findings and entered an order to cease and 
desist, as set forth in the proposed consent agreement, in disposition 
of this proceeding.

(Sec. 6, 38 Stat. 721; 15 U.S.C. 46. Interpret or apply sec. 5, 38 
Stat. 719, as amended; sec. 7, 38 Stat. 731, as amended; 15 U.S.C. 
45, 18)
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-8860 Filed 4-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

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

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

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 29, 2010 

d0125 

Order 

 

January 29, 2010 

139277 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139277 

 COA: 290870 

Benzie CC: 88-001130-FC 

MITCHELL D. PUGH, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 21, 2009 order 

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

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 522 

AN ACT 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide or assist in 

providing a vehicle adapted for operation by disabled 

individuals to certain eligible persons, to pay expenses 

associated with the delivery of such vehicle, 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, 
2 

•HR 522 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Deliver for Veterans 

3 Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY FOR DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AF5 FAIRS COVERAGE OF COSTS ASSOCIATED 

6 WITH DELIVERY OF AN ADAPTIVE VEHICLE. 

7 Section 3902(a) of title 38, United States Code, is 

8 amended by striking ‘‘by paying the total purchase price 

9 of the automobile or other conveyance’’ and inserting ‘‘by 

10 paying the total purchase price of the automobile or other 

11 conveyance, and the total shipping price to deliver the 

12 automobile or other conveyance to the veteran’’. 

13 SEC. 3. MODIFICATION OF CERTAIN HOUSING LOAN FEES. 

14 The loan fee table in section 3729(b)(2) of title 38, 

15 United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘November 

16 15, 2031’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘November 

17 29, 2031’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 25, 

2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 522 

AN ACT 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorlivery of such vehicle, and for other purposes. persons, to pay expenses associated with the de- ation by disabled individuals to certain eligible or assist in providing a vehicle adapted for oper- ize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 71 (Thursday, April 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 18806]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9072]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP94-221-000]


ANR Pipeline Co.; Notice of Informal Settlement Conference

April 7, 1995.
    Take notice that an informal settlement conference will be convened 
in this proceeding on Thursday, April 13, 1995, at 9:00 a.m., at the 
offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 810 First Street, 
N.E., Washington, DC, for the purpose of exploring the possible 
settlement of the above-referenced docket.
    Any party, as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(c), or any participant as 
defined by 18 CFR 385.102(b) is invited to attend. Persons wishing to 
become a party must move to intervene and receive intervener status 
pursuant to the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 385.214) (1994).
    For additional information, please contact William J. Collins (202) 
208-0248 or Warren C. Wood (202) 208-2091.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-9072 Filed 4-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-1467

___________ Nathaniel Taylor, Jr., * * Appellant, * * v. * * The City of North Little Rock, a * political subdivision of the state, * * Appeal from the United States Defendant, * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Dexter Bunting, individually & in his * official capacity as police officer for the * [UNPUBLISHED] North Little Rock Police Department; * Jay Ray, individually & in his official * capacity as police officer for the North * Little Rock Police Department; Larry * Allen, individually & in his official * capacity as police officer for the North * Little Rock Police Department, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: March 3, 1998 Filed: April 17, 1998

___________ Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________The Ho norable Elsijane Trimble Roy, United States District Judge for th e 1 Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- PER CURIAM.
NathanielTaylor, Jr. brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming defendant police o fficers denied him due process when they used excessive force against hi m while he was detained for driving under the influence of alcohol. Prior to a jury trial, the offi cers moved in limine to exclude evidence of an alleged subsequent incident of
exc essive force by defendant Dexter Bunting. Taylor responded that such evidenc e was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), which provides that evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or ac ts is not admissible to prove the character of a person to show action in conformity therewith, but is admissible to show motive, opportunity , intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake. Th e district court 1 granted the motion, concluding that the alleged subsequent incident would likely b e unfairlyprejudicial to all defendants. Following an adverse jury verdict, Taylor now appe als the court & s evidentiary ruling. Having carefully reviewed the record and th e parties & submissions on appeal, we affirm the judgment of the district court on the basis of the court & s order granting the motion in limine. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 526 

To amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to prohibit 

the Secretary of Labor from issuing a temporary standard with respect 

to COVID–19 vaccination or testing, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 25, 2023 

Ms. TENNEY (for herself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. POSEY, Mr. STEUBE, Mrs. 

LUNA, Mrs. BOEBERT, Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS, and Mr. MAST) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 

the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 

to prohibit the Secretary of Labor from issuing a temporary standard with respect to COVID–19 vaccination 

or testing, 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 ‘‘Health Freedom for 

5 All Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 526 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN EMERGENCY TEMPO2 RARY STANDARDS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 8(c) of the Occupational 

4 Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 657(c)) is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(4) The Secretary may not issue an emergency tem7 porary standard that requires an employer to ensure that 

8 employees of the employer have received a COVID–19 vac9 cine or undergo COVID–19 testing.’’. 

10 (b) APPLICATION.—The amendment under sub11 section (a) shall not apply to any emergency temporary 

12 standard under section 8(c) of the Occupational Safety 

13 and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 657(c)) issued before 

14 September 23, 2021. Any emergency temporary standard 

15 described in paragraph (4) of such section issued after 

16 such date shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 20, 2016

No. 04-16-00312-CV

Carmelita RILEY and Anthony J. Pena,

Appellants

v.

Lizette TORRES, Paula Pueblitz, San Juanita Valdez, and Puig Management and Rentals, LLC,

Appellees

From the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CVF001192 D3

Honorable Rebecca Ramirez Palomo, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellants' motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby GRANTED. Time is 

extended to October 17, 2016.

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 20th day of September, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
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-2018-0025-7070

Apergy ESP Systems, 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 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
ATTACHMENT TO 9031808085_D'ADDARIO.PDF    D’Addario’s typical clip-on headstock tuners for guitars.