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-2018-0025-6974

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
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5286 

To prohibit the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from transmitting certain information to the Department of Justice for use by the national instant 

criminal background check system. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 25, 2023 

Mr. ROY (for himself, Mr. CRANE, Mr. GOODEN of Texas, Mr. CLYDE, Mr. 

HARRIS, and Mrs. MILLER of Illinois) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from transmitting certain information to the Department of Justice 

for use by the national instant criminal background 

check system. 

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 ‘‘Defending Veterans’ 

5 Second Amendment Rights Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5286 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON SECRETARY OF VETERANS AF2 FAIRS TRANSMITTAL OF CERTAIN INFORMA3 TION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR 

4 USE BY THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL 

5 BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM. 

6 The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may not transmit 

7 to any entity in the Department of Justice, for use by the 

8 national instant criminal background check system estab9 lished under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence 

10 Prevention Act, personally identifiable information on vet11 erans and other beneficiaries, solely on the basis of a de12 termination by the Secretary under chapter 11 of title 38, 

13 United States Code, that a person has a service-connected 

14 disability. 

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-2018-0025-5989

Aisin World Corp. of 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 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
Exhibit 10.1





Exhibit 10.1




FIRST AMENDMENT TO

THE SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO COMPANY

AMENDED AND RESTATED

2006 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN




WHEREAS, The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company (the “Company”) previously adopted the The Scotts
Miracle-Gro Company Amended and Restated 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”); and



WHEREAS, subject to the limitations set forth in Article 18.1 of the Plan, the Company,
through its Board of Directors, may amend the Plan and any Award Agreements (as defined in the
Plan) without shareholder approval; and



WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan as provided herein to be effective as of the
20th day of January, 2010.




NOW THEREFORE, the Company hereby amends the Plan as follows:




Section 2.47 shall be amended by adding the following sentence at the end thereof:



Effective for Awards granted on or after January 20, 2010, an Award Agreement may specify a
different definition of “Termination” or “Terminate,” that will apply to such Award Agreement;
provided that no such different definition shall cause the term of the Award to which it relates to
extend beyond the maximum possible term for such Award contemplated under the applicable provisions
of this Plan and any applicable law, regulation or stock exchange rule.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this First Amendment to the Plan to be executed by
its duly authorized officer effective as of the date first set forth above



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	THE SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO COMPANY
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Denise Stump	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Its:
	 	EVP, Global Human Resources
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-2018-0025-6227

Alpha Power Devices, 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 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

General Counsel
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Walter Taylor, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, *176Bronx County (Fred Eggert, J.), rendered March 13, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20 [1]) and sentencing him to an indeterminate prison term of 6 to 18 years, unanimously affirmed.

Two witnesses testified that after the deceased verbally threatened defendant, they observed defendant pull out a knife and stab the decedent five or six times. The jury rejected defendant’s claim of self-defense that during a struggle with the deceased he tried to push the knife out of the deceased’s hand causing it to twice enter the deceased’s stomach.

Defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial when the court precluded the defense from introducing opinion evidence of defendant’s good character is unpreserved for appellate review. The defendant consented to the court’s ruling (CPL 470.05 [2]). Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals has adhered to the rule that character evidence is only admissible in the form of testimony regarding a defendant’s general reputation in the community *(People v Barber,*74 NY2d 653 [1989]; *People v Bouton,*50 NY2d 130 [1980]; *People v Van Gaasbeck,*189 NY 408 [1907]). This court is bound by that precedent. *(People v Munoz,*40 AD2d 337 [1st Dept 1973], *affd*33 NY2d 998 [1974].)

Defendant’s challenges to the prosecutor’s summation comments are similarly unpreserved (CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to review in the interest of justice. In any case, the prosecutor’s remarks were within the range of permissible rhetorical comment and were directly responsive to defense counsel’s summation *(People v Rivera,*159 AD2d 229 [1st Dept 1990]; *People v Torres,*160 AD2d 285 [1st Dept 1990]). Although the prosecutor’s quoting from the Bible was improper *(People v Morales,*147 AD2d 381, 385 [1st Dept 1989]), in the absence of other egregious conduct, this one remark was not so harmful as to deprive defendant of a fair trial. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Asch, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.
#### Dwenard BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 49679.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 1, 1995.

Stephen J. Harris, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Fernando Bermudez, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before KENNEDY, P.J., and SMART and LAURA DENVIR STITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Dwenard Brown pleaded guilty to first degree assault and was sentenced to fifteen years of imprisonment. Brown appeals from the denial of his post-conviction motion under Rule 24.035. Mr. Brown contends the court erred in denying relief because, he contends, his counsel was ineffective in advising him to plead guilty, and in failing to keep his promise to present mitigating evidence as to sentencing.

Judgment is affirmed. Rule 80.25(b).
Exhibit
23.1

















Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm





We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-74245, 333-39450, and 333-67720) of GeoGlobal Resources Inc.
of our report dated March 25, 2004 (except Note 5(c), as to
which the date is June 5, 2008)with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of GeoGlobal Resources Inc. included in Amendment No. 1 to
the Annual Report (Form 10-KSB/A) for the year ended December 31,
2003.








"Ernst & Young LLP"
(signed)





CALGARY,
ALBERTA                                                                           CHARTERED
ACCOUNTANTS


June 6,
2008
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 73 (Monday, April 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19267-19268]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9309]



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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Meeting of Board of 
Scientific Counselors

    Pursuant to Pub. L. 92-463, notice is hereby given of the meeting 
of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Heart, Lung, and Blood 
Institute on June 1-2, 1995, National Institutes of Health, 9000 
Rockville Pike, Building 10, Room 7C101, Bethesda, Maryland 20892.
    This meeting will be open to the public from 8:30 to 9:00 a.m. on 
June 1 and from 8:30 to 9:00 a.m. on June 2 for discussion of the 
general trends in research relating to cardiovascular, pulmonary and 
certain hematologic diseases. Attendance by the public will be limited 
to space available.
    In accordance with the provisions set forth in sec. 552b(c)(6), 
Title 5, U.S.C. and sec. 10(d) of Pub. L. 92-463, the meeting will be 
closed to the public from 9:00 a.m. to adjournment on June 1 and from 
9:00 a.m. to adjournment on June 2, 1995 for the review, discussion, 
and evaluation of individual programs and projects conducted by the 
National Institutes of Health, including consideration of personnel 
qualifications and performance, the competence of individual 
investigators, and similar items, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
    Ms. Terry Long, Chief, Communications and Public Information 
Branch, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Building 31, Room 
4A21, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, phone 
(301) 496-4236, will provide a summary of the meeting and a roster of 
the Board members.
    Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as 
sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should 
contact the Executive Secretary in advance of the meeting.
    Substantive program information may be obtained from Dr. Edward D. 
Korn, [[Page 19268]] Executive Secretary and Director, Division of 
Intramural Research, NHLBI, NIH, Building 10, Room 7N214, phone (301) 
496-2116.

    Dated: April 11, 1995.
Susan K. Feldman,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 95-9309 Filed 4-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5341 

To exclude from gross income certain assistance provided to farmers, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 5, 2023 

Ms. ADAMS (for herself, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, Mr. DAVIS of 

North Carolina, Ms. BUSH, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Ms. PINGREE, Ms. 

STRICKLAND, Ms. SEWELL, Ms. MCCLELLAN, and Mr. NICKEL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways 

and Means 

A BILL 

To exclude from gross income certain assistance provided 

to farmers, 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 ‘‘Family Farmer and 

5 Rancher Tax Fairness Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TAX TREATMENT OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE TO 

7 FARMERS, ETC. 

8 For purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 

9 in the case of any payment described in section 1006(e) 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5341 IH

1 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (as amended 

2 by section 22007 of Public Law 117–169) or section 

3 22006 of Public Law 117–169— 

4 (1) such payment shall not be included in the 

5 gross income of the person on whose behalf, or to 

6 whom, such payment is made, 

7 (2) no deduction shall be denied, no tax at8 tribute shall be reduced, and no basis increase shall 

9 be denied, by reason of the exclusion from gross in10 come provided by paragraph (1), and 

11 (3) in the case of a partnership or S corpora12 tion on whose behalf, or to whom, such a payment 

13 is made— 

14 (A) any amount excluded from income by 

15 reason of paragraph (1) shall be treated as tax 

16 exempt income for purposes of sections 705 and 

17 1366 of such Code, and 

18 (B) except as provided by the Secretary of 

19 the Treasury (or the Secretary’s delegate), any 

20 increase in the adjusted basis of a partner’s in21 terest in a partnership under section 705 of 

22 such Code with respect to any amount described 

23 in subparagraph (A) shall equal the partner’s 

24 distributive share of deductions resulting from 

25 interest that is part of such payment and the 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 5341 IH

1 partner’s share, as determined under section 

2 752 of such Code, of principal that is part of 

3 such payment. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 71 (Thursday, April 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 18857]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9116]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993; Financial Services Technology Consortium, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on December 21, 1994, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Financial Services 
Technology Consortium, Inc. (the ``Consortium'') has filed written 
notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal 
Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, the new Principal 
Members of the Consortium are: Corestates Financial Corp., 
Philadelphia, PA; and Cardinal Bancshares, Inc., Atlanta, GA. The 
following parties were admitted as Associate Members of the Consortium: 
Sun Microsystems Laboratories, Inc., Mountain View, CA; and Master Card 
International, New York, NY. The following party was admitted as an 
Advisory Member of the Consortium: The National Security Agency, 
Washington, DC.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership remains open, and 
the Consortium intends to file additional written notifications 
disclosing all changes in membership.
    On October 21, 1993, the Consortium filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on December 14, 1993 (58 FR 65399).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on November 22, 
1994. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on March 20, 1995 (60 FR 14779).
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 95-9116 Filed 4-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of

TANYA LASHAWN BRIDGES

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT

FROM INACTIVE STATUS

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 86 DB 2017 (No. 55 RST 2017)

Attorney Registration No. 207478

(Out of State)

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14th day of August, 2017, the Report and Recommendation of 

Disciplinary Board Member dated August 1, 2017, is approved and it is ORDERED that

Tanya LaShawn Bridges, who has been on Inactive Status, has never been suspended 

or disbarred, and has demonstrated that she has the moral qualifications, competency 

and learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be 

and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this 

Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and 

processing of this matter shall be paid by the Petitioner.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

June 23, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135564 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 135564 

 COA: 277913 

Jackson CC: 99-097252-FH 

WILLIAM T. CARLESS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 16, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s0616 

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. 

June 23, 2008 

 Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5047 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5047

 To exempt juveniles from the requirements for suits by prisoners, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 27, 2023

 Ms. Scanlon (for herself and Mr. Armstrong) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To exempt juveniles from the requirements for suits by prisoners, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Justice for Juveniles Act''.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF JUVENILES FROM THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SUITS BY 
              PRISONERS.

    Section 7 of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (42 
U.S.C. 1997e) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (h), by striking ``sentenced for, or 
        adjudicated delinquent for,'' and inserting ``or sentenced 
        for''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(i) Exemption of Juvenile Prisoners.--This section shall not 
apply to an action pending on the date of enactment of the Justice for 
Juveniles Act or filed on or after such date if such action is--
            ``(1) brought by a prisoner who has not attained 22 years 
        of age; or
            ``(2) brought by any prisoner with respect to a prison 
        condition that occurred before the prisoner attained 22 years 
        of age.''.
                                 <all>
```