alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 68 (Monday, April 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18096-18097]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8681]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP95-217-000]


Trunkline Gas Co.; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

April 4, 1995.
    Take notice that on March 31, 1995, Trunkline Gas Company 
(Trunkline) tendered for filing Ninth Revised Tariff Sheet Nos. 6, 7, 
8, 9 and 10 which are proposed to become effective May 1, 1995, 
consistent with Section 27.3(B)(1)(f)(i)(a) of the General Terms and 
Conditions of Trunkline's FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1 
(General Terms and Conditions).
    Trunkline states that the purpose of this filing is to eliminate 
the Initial Stranded Transportation Cost Surcharges and to report that 
under the terms of its Tariff, there are no Remaining Excess recoveries 
to be repaid to shippers. Trunkline notes that upon the Commission's 
acceptance of Trunkline's Gas Supply Realignment (GSR) Costs recovery 
filing in Docket No. RP95-220-000, also filed on March 31, 1995, the 
revised tariff sheets included in this filing will be superseded.
    Trunkline states that a copy of this filing has been served on all 
customers affected by this filing and the respective state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest the filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 
20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests should 
be filed on or before April 11, 1995. Protests will be considered by 
the [[Page 18097]] Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make the protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-8681 Filed 4-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4809

Arrowhead Electrical Products, 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 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
#### Williamsville Central School District, Respondent, v Cannon Partnership et al., Defendants, and Celotex Corporation, Appellant.

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying, in toto, Celotex’s motion for a protective order. Plaintiff failed to establish that Celotex’s 2-ply or 4-ply specifications are sufficiently similar to the 730-c 3-ply specification which plaintiff alleges was defective *(see, Wilcox v County of Onondaga,*132 AD2d 984, 985; *Harmon v Ford Motor Co.,*89 AD2d 800, 801; *Johantgen v Hobart Mfg. Co.,*64 AD2d 858, 859). Accordingly, discovery should be limited to documents concerning the nature and development of Celotex’s 3-ply specification from 1964 when it was first marketed until 1982 when plaintiff discovered the defects in the roof. Discovery of similar litigation claims may be extended to the present, but only about information regarding caption and index number *(see, Valet v American Motors,*105 AD2d 645, 647; *Mott v Chesebro-Whitman Co.,*87 AD2d 573, 574). (Appeal from order of Supreme *966Court, Erie County, McGowan, J.—discovery.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.
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-2018-0025-5143

Bergstrom, 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
#### Nickolas C. HENCEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 04-95-00015-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio.

June 21, 1995.

*161Charles Campion, San Antonio, for appellant.

Daniel Thornberry, Asst. Crim. Dist. Atty., San Antonio, for appellee.

Before LOPEZ, STONE and DUNCAN, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

On October 23, 1990, the trial court granted appellant deferred adjudication on a charge of assault. On March 27, 1991, the court adjudicated appellant’s guilt and assessed punishment at a fine of $100 and 180 days in jail, probated for one year. On December 27, 1994, the court revoked appellant’s probation and sentenced him to serve 90 days in jail. In a single point of error, appellant contends that the court denied him his right to counsel at the probation revocation hearing in violation of article 42.12, § 21(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We reverse and remand.

A probationer is entitled to counsel, either retained or appointed, at a revocation hearing unless he has affirmatively waived his right to counsel. *Parker v. State,*545 S.W.2d 151, 155 (Tex.Crim.App.1977); *see also Thompson v. State,*626 S.W.2d 750, 753 (Tex.Crim.App.1981) (record did not reflect defendant informed of right to counsel at revocation hearing); Tex.Code CRIM.PROC. Ann. art. 42.12, § 21(d) (Vernon Supp.1995) (“defendant has a right to counsel at a hearing under this section”). The judgment in the present case states that appellant “knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived the right to representation by counsel.”1 As conceded by the State, the statement of facts from the revocation hearing affirmatively establishes the falsity of this recital.2 Not only does the record lack any indication that appellant ever waived his right to counsel, it shows that Judge Reed never informed appellant of his right to counsel nor asked him whether he desired counsel.

Appellant brings to our attention that we previously reversed this same trial court for the same error a full seven months before the revocation here at issue. *See Anderson v. State,*No. 04-93-00240-CR (Tex.App.—San Antonio May 18, 1994) (unpublished). We anticipate that the trial court will recognize and protect probationers’ right to counsel in future revocation proceedings without further prompting from this court.

Appellant’s sole point of error is sustained. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court.

1

. The judgment also purports to order that appellant's sentence be served "day for day.” This command improperly conflicts with the statutory authority granted to the sheriff to award "good time” credits and is beyond the authority of the trial court. *See*Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 42.032 (Vernon Supp.1995); *Kopeski v. Martin,*629 S.W.2d 743, 745 (Tex.Crim.App.1982).

2

. The judgment also recites that the State appeared by her Assistant Criminal District Attorney, Mary Beth Welsh, but the statement of facts reflects that only Judge Bonnie Reed, appellant, and an unnamed probation officer were present at the hearing.
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-2018-0025-6653

Apex Sourcing & Manufacturing: 

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
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FLORENCIO PAULE,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 14

- 72597

Agency No. A201

- 236

- 591

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 25, 2016 **

Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN , Circuit Judges.

The 90

- day stay of proceedings granted on May 15, 2016, has expired.

Florencio Paule’s request to lift the stay is denied as moot.

Paule, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

NOV 2 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal. Our

jurisdiction is gov erned by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

the agency’s factual findings. See Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184

- 85

(9th Cir. 2006)

. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Paule’s past

experiences in the Philippines do not rise to the level of persecution. See Nagoulko

v. INS , 333 F.3d 1012, 1016

- 18 (9th Cir. 2003); see Lim v. INS , 224 F.3d 929, 936

(9th Cir. 2000) (“Threats standing alone . . . constitute past persecution in only a

small category of cases, and only when the threats are so menacing as to cause

significa nt actual “suffering or harm.”). Substantial evidence also supports the

agency’s determination that Paule failed to establish tha t it is more likely than not

that he would be persecuted if returned to the Philippines. See Hakeem v. INS , 273

F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (claim of future persecution weakened when

similarly

- situated family members continue to live in the country with out incident)

,

superseded by statute on other grounds

. We do not consider Paule’s contention

related to humanitarian asylum because he failed to raise this issue to the agency.

See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisd iction

to review claims not presented to the agency). Thus, we deny the petition for3

review as to Paule’s withholding of removal claim.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part

.
2010 Short-Term Incentive Plan of Mark E. Haidet



 Exhibit 10.3 

Short-Term Incentive Plan of Mark E. Haidet 

2010 STI Goals 
  

			
	Name: Mark Haidet	  	Job Title: CFO
		
	Effective Dates of Plan: 1/1/10 – 12/31/10	  	Business Unit: Corporate Services
		
	STI Potential: 70% of Base Salary	  	Manager: John Heyman

 Goals: 

 

											
	 Goal Description
	 	 Weight
	    	 Payout
Timing
	    	 Budget

(show qtrly if applicable)
	    	 Target

(show qtrly if applicable)
	    	Comments
						
	 Company Operating Income –

67% paid at Budget
	 	67%	    	Annual	    	 Q1 = N/A
 Q2 =
N/A
 Q3 = N/A
 Q4 = N/A

Annual = [xxxxxx]*
	    	 Q1 = N/A
 Q2 =
N/A
 Q3 = N/A
 Q4 = N/A

Annual = [xxxxxx]*
	    	
						
	Operational objectives as determined by the CEO. This portion of bonus is only paid out if the Operating Income budget is achieved.	 	33%	    	Annual	    		    		    	

  
 *
Filed under an application for confidential treatment.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of 

JONATHAN EDWARD OLIVETTI

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 2834 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

No. 146 DB 2021

(United States District Court for the 

Middle District of Pennsylvania, Crim. 

No. 3:21-cr-00087)

Attorney Registration No. 206603

(Lackawanna County)

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 7

th day of December, 2021, having indicated that he has no 

objection to being placed on temporary suspension, the Rule is made absolute, and 

Jonathan Edward Olivetti is temporarily suspended. See Pa.R.D.E. 214(d)(2). He shall 

comply with all the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217.

Respondent’s right to petition for dissolution or amendment of this Order and to 

request accelerated disposition of any charges underlying this Order pursuant to 

Pa.R.D.E. 214(d)(4) and (f)(2) are specifically preserved.
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-2018-0025-6469

Apex Sourcing & Manufacturing: 

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

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6355

Diebold Nixdorf Incorporated:

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
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          3,494
<SECURITIES>                                    7,275
<RECEIVABLES>                                     597
<ALLOWANCES>                                      579
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               10,881
<PP&E>                                          2,993
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,148)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 11,903
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             851
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       63,609
<OTHER-SE>                                          0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   11,903
<SALES>                                            95
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   95
<CGS>                                             137
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   7,980
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (723)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,299)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,299)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,299)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.76)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.76)



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 9 (Friday, January 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 3247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-918]



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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration of Aging


White House Conference on Aging

AGENCY: White House Conference on Aging, AoA, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to Title II of the Older 
Americans Act Amendments of 1987, Pub. L. 100-175 as amended by Pub. L. 
102-375 and Pub. L. 103-171, that the 1995 White House Conference on 
Aging Policy Committee will hold a meeting on Wednesday, January 25, 
1995, from 1 PM to 4 PM. The meeting will be held in room 216, Hart 
Senate Office Building, Constitution and Delaware Avenues, NE., 
Washington, DC.
    The meeting of the Committee shall be open to the public. The 
proposed agenda includes discussion and voting on the final agenda for 
the May Conference which will be published in the Federal Register.
    Records shall be kept of all Committee proceedings and shall be 
available for public inspection at 501 School Street, SW., 8th Floor, 
Washington, DC 20024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
White House Conference on Aging, 501 School Street, SW., 8th Floor, 
Washington, DC 20024; telephone (202) 245-7116.

    Dated: January 10, 1995.
Fernando M. Torres-Gil,
Assistant Secretary for Aging.
[FR Doc. 95-918 Filed 1-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4130-02-M
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-2018-0025-5014

OMRON Management Center of 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,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel