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-2018-0025-4760

Horizon Hobby 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

_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
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED September 23, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-60472 Summary Calendar

DONALD E. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus ANDREW GAMBRELL; REX K. JONES; LINDSAY CARTER; DEWITT ALLRED, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:03-CV-612-R

-------------------- Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Donald E. Smith, Mississippi prisoner # 31733, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as untimely. This court reviews for abuse of discretion. Gartrell v. Gaylor , 981 F.2d 254, 256 (5th Cir. 1993). Smith’s claims against Andrew Gambrell and Rex Jones arise from the proceedings leading to and surrounding his indictment, conviction, and sentence. His allegations of ineffective assistance and prosecutorial misconduct call into question theNo. 04-60472 -2- validity of his conviction, and Smith therefore must satisfy the conditions of Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 484-87 (1994), before he can proceed in a civil rights action. Therefore, the dismissal of Smith’s claims against Gambrell and Jones is AFFIRMED, but the judgment is AMENDED to state that the claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE to their being asserted again until the Heck conditions are met. Johnson v. McElveen , 101 F.3d 423, 424 (5th Cir. 1996). Smith has not challenged the district court’s conclusion that his claims affecting his eligibility for immediate release must be raised in habeas, and any such claim is deemed abandoned. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Smith’s claims against Lindsay Carter and Dewitt Allred arise out of postconviction proceedings in his case. Smith has not established that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing these claims as untimely. See Gartrell , 981 F.2d at 256; M ISS . C ODE A NN . § 15-1-49(1); Hemphill-Weathers v. Farrish , 779 So. 2d 167, 171 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.
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-2018-0025-5918

Applica Water Products 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/%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
118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 502 

AN ACT 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to ensure that the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs repays members of the 

Armed Forces for certain contributions made by such 

members towards Post-9/11 Educational Assistance, 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 502 EH

1 SECTION 1. REPAYMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 

2 FORCES FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARD 

3 POST-9/11 EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3327(f)(3) of title 38, 

5 United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘together’’ 

6 and all that follows through ‘‘(as applicable),’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 subsection (a) shall take effect on August 1, 2023. 

9 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF CERTAIN HOUSING LOAN FEES. 

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

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

12 14, 2031’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘November 

13 28, 2031’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 7, 

2023. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 502 

AN ACT 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to ensure 

poses. 9/11 Educational Assistance, and for other purtributions made by such members towards Postmembers of the Armed Forces for certain conthat the Secretary of Veterans Affairs repays
ahcafa904modification1.htm


Back to Form 10-Q


Exhibit 10.1





MINOR MODIFICATION NO. 1







 


AHCA CONTRACT NO. FA904










 


WELLCARE OF FLORIDA, INC.





D/B/A STAYWELL HEALTH PLAN OF FLORIDA





8735 Henderson Road





Tampa, Florida 33634










 


AHCA Contract No. FA904, as entered into on the 1st day of September 2009, is hereby revised as follows:










 


1.                     Standard  Contract,  Section  III,  Item  C,  Contract  Managers,  sub-item 2,  is hereby amended to change the Vendor's Contract Manager's contact information to now read 


                        as follows:





 


Robert Diaz


WellCare of Florida, Inc.


d/b/a Staywell Health Plan of Florida


8735 Henderson Road


Tampa, FL 33634


(813)206-1758





 


All other terms and conditions of the Contract shall remain unchanged.










	
WELLCARE OF FLORIDA, INC.


D/B/A STAYWELL HEALTH PLAN


OF FLORIDA

	  	

STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY 


FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINSITRATION




 


	
 


 


/s/ Thomas L. Tran                                                                 

	  	
  


 


/s/ Illegible                                                                        


	
Chief Financial Officer

	  	
Contract Manager


	  	  	  
	
Date: 1/20/10                                                                           

	  	
Date: 1/25/2010                                                                 


	  	  	  
	  	  	  
	  	  	
APPROVED


	  	  	
 


/s/ Melanie Brown-Woofer                                           


	  	  	
Melanie Brown-Woofer



Bureau Chief of Health Systems Development




 


	  	  	
Date: 1/26/10                                                                     













 


 




 







 

 



AHCA Contract No. FA904, Minor Modification No. 1, Page 1 of 1
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 20-0659V

UNPUBLISHED

CHERYL FABIAN,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: November 24, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Ronald Craig Homer, Conway, Homer, P.C., Boston, MA, for Petitioner.

Althea Walker Davis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On May 29, 2020, Cheryl Fabian filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on 

September 24, 2019. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit 

of the Office of Special Masters.

On November 23, 2021, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he

concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) 

Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent states that “Petitioner had no relevant history of 

pain, inflammation, or dysfunction in her left shoulder; her pain and reduced range of 

1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 

to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act 

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government 

Services). This means the Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance 

with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, 

the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that 

the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease 

of citation, all sectionreferences to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012).
2

motion occurred within 48 hours of receipt of an intramuscular vaccination; her symptoms

were limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered; and no other condition 

or abnormality was identified to explain her symptoms. Id. at 7. Respondent further agrees 

that the scope of damages to be awarded is limited to Petitioner’s SIRVA and its related 

sequelae only. Id.

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
#### Algon Food Corp. et al., Respondents, v Travelers Insurance Companies et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Eugene Nardelli, J.), entered on April 19, 1989, which granted the motion for leave to renew by defendant Travelers Insurance Companies and, upon renewal, denied its motion for partial summary judgment, denied the motion by defendant Royal Indemnity Company for partial summary judgment and granted plaintiffs’ cross motion to strike Travelers’ eighth and Royal’s third affirmative defenses, is unanimously modified on the law to the extent of denying plaintiffs’ cross motion to strike Travelers’ eighth and Royal’s third affirmative defenses, and otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Plaintiffs commenced this action for damages for property and business losses arising out of a fire which occurred on their premises on October 8, 1984. Thereafter, plaintiffs successfully sought to amend the complaint to include the date of *336October 7, 1984 as an additional basis for liability. Defendants, however, answered by asserting affirmative defenses that any fire loss claims with respect to October 7, 1984 were time barred by the two-year Statute of Limitations specified in Insurance Law § 3404. In that regard, it is defendants’ contention that the fires took place on two separate occasions and, therefore, the original complaint failed to provide notice of the earlier fire. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the limitations issue while plaintiffs cross-moved to dismiss the subject affirmative defenses. The court denied defendants’ motions but granted plaintiffs’ cross motion on the ground that no prejudice to defendants’ investigation of the first fire has been demonstrated by the delay in pleading.

If, as plaintiffs urge, the fire losses allegedly sustained on October 7, 1984 relate back to the original complaint on the ground that the fires constituted a continuous course of events rather than, as defendants argue, two distinct and unrelated occurrences, then the defenses of untimeliness will ultimately be unavailing. If, on the other hand, defendants’ position eventually prevails, and the evidence were to show that the two fires were separate in time, location and origin, then the Statute of Limitations will preclude recovery for any losses caused by the October 7th fire. However, what is involved herein is a disputed question of fact which certainly cannot be resolved on the existing record. Therefore, the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision granting plaintiffs’ cross motion to dismiss defendants’ affirmative defenses of untimeliness was to determine in plaintiffs’ favor a contested factual matter. This was error. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Milonas, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
EXHIBIT
21.1




SUBSIDIARIES
(as of December 15, 2008) OF REGISTRANT




MegaBingo,
Inc., a Delaware corporation




MGAM
Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation




MGAM
Services, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company




Innovative
Sweepstakes Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation




MGAM
Systems International, Inc., a Delaware corporation




Megabingo
International, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company




Multimedia
Games de México 1 S. de R.L. de C.V., a Mexican entity




Servicios
de Wild Basin S. de R.L. de C.V., a Mexican entity
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-2018-0025-5462

Bosch Rexroth: 

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
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

 

Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted),Nancy J. Baker, Chief Financial Officer of Cymer, Inc., a Nevada corporation(the “Registrant”), hereby certifies that, to the best of her knowledge:

 

1)              The Registrant’s annual report on Form 10-K(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934.

 

2)              The information contained in the Reportfairly presents in all material respects the results of operations of theRegistrant for the periods covered by the Report and the Registrant’s financialcondition as of the end of those periods.

 
| Date: March 11, 2004 | /s/ Nancy J. Baker                      |   |
|----------------------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|                 | Nancy J. Baker, Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Cymer,Inc. and will be retained by Cymer, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------


                            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 SpeechSwitch, Inc. ("the Company") on
Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Bruce
R. Knef, President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, 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 results of operations of
          the Company.



          Date: January 16, 2007


          By /s/ Bruce R. Knef
             ---------------------------
             Bruce R. Knef
             President, Chief Executive Officer
             and Principal Financial Officer
### NO. 03- 14 -00711- CV

In The Court Of Appeals

The Third District Of Texas

Austin, Texas

Sam Odom,

Appellant,

V.



### DP Centex 1, Ltd,

Appellee.

Appeal from the County Court at Law Number One

Travis County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. C-1- CV

- 14 -009185



### JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE ACCEPTED

03-14-00711-CV

3745168

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

1/13/2015 10:42:02 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERKTO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COME NOW, Appellant, Sam Odom ( Appellant ), and Appellee , DP Centex

1, Ltd. ( Appellee ), and file this Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice and, in

support hereof, would res pectfully show this Honorable Court the following:

1. Appellants and Appellee jointly move to dismiss this suit with prejudice.

2. All parties agree that Appellants ’ claims shall be dismissed with prejudice,

as evidenced by the signatures of the parties’ counsel below.

3. Therefore, the parties request that this Court enter an Order Dismissing this

case with prejudice.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PR EMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant, Sam Odom

, jointly

with Appellee DP Centex 1, Ltd

. , pray that this Court dismiss this Cause of acti on

with prejudice.

Respectfully Submitted,

MINERVE LAW FIRM

/S/ JAMES MINERVE

James Minerve

State Bar No 24008692

115 Saddle Blanket Trail

Buda, Texas 78610

Ofc: 888

- 819

- 1440

Cell: 210

- 336

- 5867

Fax: 888

- 230

- 6397Attorney for Appellant Sam Odom

THE J. HYDE LAW OFFICE PLLC

/S/ DR. J. HYDE

Dr. J. Hyde

State Bar No 24027083

111 E. 17 th Street #12015

Austin, Texas 78711

Tel: 512

- 200

- 4080

Fax: 512

- 582

- 8295

Attorney f

or Appellee DP Centex 1, Ltd.

### NO. 03

- 14

- 00711

- CV

In The Court Of Appeals

The Third District Of Texas

Austin, Texas

Sam Odom,

Appellants

V.



### DP Centex 1, Ltd.,

Appellee.

Appeal from the County Court at Law Number One

Travis County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. C

- 1

- CV

- 14

- 009185



### ORDER OF DISMISS AL WITH PREJUDICECame before this Court the Joint Motion to Dismiss Wi th Prejudice filed by

Appellant

, Sam Odom and Appellee

, DP Centex 1, Ltd. The Court, after

considering the Joint Motion and pleadings is of the opinion that the Mo tion is well

taken and should be, in all things, GRANTED.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this suit and all claims asserted by

Appella nt, Sam Odom against Appellee , DP Centex 1, Ltd., shall be, and the same

hereby are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that costs of court will be paid by the party

incurring them.

SIGNED on this _______ day of ______________________, 2015.

____________________________________ JUDGE PRESIDINGAGREED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT :

MINERVE LAW FIRM

/S/ JAMES MINERVE

James Minerve

State Bar No 24008692

115 Saddle Blanket Trail

Buda, Texas 78610

Ofc: 888

- 819

- 1440

Cell: 210

- 336

- 5867

Fax: 888

- 230

- 6397

Attorney fo r Plaintiff Sam Odom

THE J. HYDE LAW OFFICE PLLC

/S/ DR. J. HYDE

Dr. J. Hyde

State Bar No 24027083

111 E. 17 th Street #12015

Austin, Texas 78711

Tel: 512

- 200

- 4080

Fax: 512

- 582

- 8295

Attorney f

or Appellee DP Centex 1, Ltd.
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-2018-0025-4789

Enerpac:

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