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

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6552

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
#### Frances REED, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. FAMOUS BARR, et al., Defendants/Respondents.

No. 66115.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

March 14, 1995.

*265Nick D. Vasileff, Madison IL, for appellant.

John Gerard Enright, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before SMITH, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and WHITE, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff brought an action after slipping and falling in defendants’ store. Plaintiff appeals the verdict of the jury, which found defendants 0% at fault. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
**Exhibit** **32.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

The undersigned officer of Red Mile Entertainment, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

 

 

| 1. | he Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.                                   |

 

| Dated: August 14, 2006  | /s/ Ben Zadik            |
|------------------------------|-------------------------------|
|                         | Ben Zadik                |
|                         | Chief Financial Officer  |
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 68 (Monday, April 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18091-18092]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8649]



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


DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board; 
Meeting

agency: National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board, 
Education.

action: Notice of committee meeting.

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

summary: This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of the 
National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board's Committee 
on the Regional Educational Laboratories. This notice also describes 
the functions of the Board. Notice of this meeting is required under 
Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and is intended 
to notify the public of their opportunity to attend.

date and time: April 20, 1995, 8:15 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.

address: The San Miguel Room of the Grand Hyatt Hotel, 345 Stockton 
Street, San Francisco, CA 94108.

for further information, contact: John Christensen, Designated Federal 
Official, National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board, 
555 New Jersey Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. 20208-7564. Telephone: 
(202) 219-2065; FAX: (202) 219-1466.

supplementary information: The National Educational Research Policy and 
Priorities Board is authorized by Section 921 of the Educational 
Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act of 1994. The 
Board works collaboratively with the Assistant Secretary for the Office 
of Educational Research and Improvement to forge a national consensus 
with respect to a long-term agenda for educational research, 
development, and dissemination, and to provide advice and assistance to 
the Assistant Secretary in administering the duties of the Office.
    The meeting of the Committee on the Regional Educational 
Laboratories of the Board is open to the public. The agenda for the 
April 20 meeting provides for the [[Page 18092]] review and comment by 
the Committee of the proposed statement of work for the Regional 
Educational Laboratories forthcoming contractual competition.
    The public is being given less than 15 days notice because of the 
urgency required to meet the rigorous procurement schedule associated 
with the regional educational laboratories competition. The Office of 
Educational Research and Improvement anticipates announcing competition 
guidelines by May 15 in order to select the regional educational 
laboratories by November 30, 1995, the date contracts for the current 
labs expire.
    Records are kept of all Board proceedings, and are available for 
public inspection at the office of the National Educational Research 
Policy and Priorities Board, 555 New Jersey Avenue NW., Washington, 
D.C. 20208-7564.

    Dated: April 4, 1995.
Sharon P. Robinson,
Assistant Secretary, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
[FR Doc. 95-8649 Filed 4-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-M
#### In the Matter of Anthony S., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Kathryn McDonald, J.), entered August 1, 1985, finding that appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, attempted escape in the second degree and obstructing governmental administration, and which granted appellant a conditional discharge on condition that he be placed under the jurisdiction of New Jersey courts, modified, on the law, to the extent of reversing the order summarily denying the motion to suppress and remanding for further proceedings, without costs.

On appeal, respondent argues, *inter alia,*that the court at the fact-finding hearing improperly exercised its discretion in summarily denying his oral motion to suppress the gun seized. We agree. Although a motion to suppress is required to be *326made prior to the fact finding *(see,*Family Ct Act § 330.2 [2]), if good cause is shown why the motion was not made prior to the commencement of the fact finding, a court may entertain the motion *(see,*Family Ct Act § 330.2 [2]; § 332.2 [3]).

Because the respondent was detained, and the petition’s highest count was less than a C felony, a fact-finding hearing was required to be commenced no more than three days after the conclusion of the initial appearance *(see,*Family Ct Act § 340.1). At the fact finding, respondent’s counsel orally moved to suppress the gun seized, explaining that her delinquency in bringing the motion was due to her appointment as counsel only four days prior to the fact finding and because of her lack of opportunity to communicate with the detained respondent. Under these circumstances, we find that it was an abuse of discretion not to entertain respondent’s motion. We also note that a compelling argument for suppression is made by counsel which, if proved, would warrant suppression and dismissal of the petition.

The order of this court entered herein on June 14, 1990 and the memorandum decision filed therewith [162 AD2d 228] are recalled and vacated. Concur—Ross, Milonas and Kassal, JJ.

Murphy, P. J., and Wallach, J., dissent in a memorandum by Wallach, J., as follows:

Following our review of the record as a whole, and giving every inference favorable to the prosecution arising from the testimony of the two arresting officers, we would find that there was no probable cause to stop the vehicle in which respondent was a rear-seat passenger and to search to bag from which a gun was recovered. Accordingly, we would dismiss the weapon charge and remand the matter for a new dispositional hearing addressed solely to the two remaining charges contained in the petition.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23
 
                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR
 
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
of Envirotest Systems Corp. and Subsidiaries on Form S-8 (File No. 33-81558) of
our reports dated December 5, 1997, on our audits of the consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedule of Envirotest Systems Corp. and
Subsidiaries as of September 30, 1997, 1996 and 1995, and for the years ended
September 30, 1997, 1996 and 1995, which reports are included in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K.
 
                                             /s/ COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
                                          --------------------------------------
                                                 Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
 
San Jose, California
December 29, 1997
#### Robert JONES, Appellant, v. TREASURER OF the STATE of Missouri, as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund, Respondent.

No. 65679.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

March 7, 1995.

Lawrence E. Manion, Jr., Clayton, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Vicky L. Anthony, Asst. Atty. Gen., Cape Girardeau, for respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Claimant, Robert Jones, appeals from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s denial of his claim for compensation from the Second Injury Fund. We affirm.

The Commission’s order denying compensation from the Second Injury Fund is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the award pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
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-2018-0025-6170

Fluor Enterprises, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6316

CW Bearing USA, 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/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
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-40575

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DAVID OLIVARES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CR-172-1

Before BENAVIDES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

After pleading guilty, David Olivares was sentenced to consecutive 

prison terms of 210 months for conspiring to possess with the intent to 

manufacture and distribute methamphetamine and 60 months for possessing 

a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The judgment was entered 

in July 2016, and he did not directly appeal. Approximately eight months later, 

Olivares filed a pro se, self-styled “Motion to Run Sentences Concurrent.” He 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 23, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-40575 Document: 00514360212 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/23/2018
No. 17-40575

2

now appeals from the district court’s orders denying that motion and denying 

his subsequent motion seeking reconsideration of the denial. Olivares argues 

that, in light of Dean v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 1170 (2017), which he 

describes as limiting the effect of the consecutive sentencing requirement of 18 

U.S.C. § 924(c), the district court abused its discretion in failing to modify his 

sentence so that his prison terms would run concurrently.

A judgment of conviction that includes a prison sentence “constitutes a 

final judgment,” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(b), and a district court may not correct or 

modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed, except in those 

specific circumstances enumerated by Congress in § 3582(b) and (c), see United 

States v. Bridges, 116 F.3d 1110, 1112 (5th Cir. 1997). Olivares does not 

contend, and the record does not reflect, that his motion for concurrent 

sentences falls under any provision of § 3582(b) or (c). Also, because the district 

court did not indicate that it was construing the motion as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

motion, much less provide Olivares with the notice and warnings required 

before recharacterizing a pro se motion as a first § 2255 motion, the motion for 

concurrent sentences did not arise under § 2255. See Castro v. United States, 

540 U.S. 375, 383 (2003). 

Olivares’s motion for concurrent sentences was an unauthorized motion 

that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider. See United States v. 

Early, 27 F.3d 140, 141-42 (5th Cir. 1994). Olivares has thus appealed from 

the district court’s denial of a “meaningless, unauthorized motion” and its

subsequent refusal to reconsider that denial. See id. at 142. The judgment of 

the district court is AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 17-40575 Document: 00514360212 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/23/2018
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**558 KA 08-01685**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LEROY BROWN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DAVID R. JUERGENS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NICOLE M. FANTIGROSSI OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Frank P. Geraci, Jr., J.), rendered May 21, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal contempt in the first degree and harassment in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of criminal contempt in the first degree (Penal Law § 215.51 [b] [v]) and harassment in the second degree (§ 240.26 [1]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was deprived of a fair trial based on prosecutorial misconduct during summation ( see People v McEathron , 86 AD3d 915, 916; People v Lyon , 77 AD3d 1338, 1339, lv denied 15 NY3d 954). Specifically, defendant either failed to object to the alleged instances of misconduct ( see People v Paul , 78 AD3d 1684, 1684-1685, lv denied 16 NY3d 834), or his objections thereto “were merely general objections without a specified basis” ( People v Beggs , 19 AD3d 1150, 1151, lv denied 5 NY3d 803; see People v Parks , 66 AD3d 1429, 1430, lv denied 14 NY3d 804; see generally People v Romero , 7 NY3d 911, 912). In any event, defendant’s contention is without merit. The majority of the comments in question were within “ ‘the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible’ ” during summations ( People v Williams , 28 AD3d 1059, 1061, affd 8 NY3d 854, quoting People v Galloway , 54 NY2d 396, 399), and they were “either a fair response to defense counsel’s summation or fair comment on the evidence” ( McEathron , 86 AD3d at 916 [internal quotation marks omitted]). “Even assuming, arguendo, that some of the prosecutor’s comments were beyond those bounds, we conclude that they were not so egregious as to deprive defendant of a**-2- 558 KA 08-01685** 

fair trial” ( id. ).

Entered: April 20, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5270 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to permit the Secretary of Defense 

to carry out certain environmental restoration projects at facilities of 

the National Guard and the Air National Guard. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 25, 2023 

Mr. DELUZIO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to permit the Secretary of Defense to carry out certain environmental 

restoration projects at facilities of the National Guard 

and the Air National Guard. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EQUIVALENT AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT CER4 TAIN PROJECTS AT FACILITIES OF THE NA5 TIONAL GUARD AND THE AIR NATIONAL 

6 GUARD. 

7 (a) REVISION OF DEFINITION.—Paragraph (4) of 

8 section 2700 of title 10, United States Code, is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5270 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘State-owned’’; 

2 (2) by striking ‘‘owned and operated by a State 

3 when such land is’’; and 

4 (3) by striking ‘‘even though such land is not 

5 under the jurisdiction of the Department of De6 fense’’ and inserting: ‘‘without regard to— 

7 ‘‘(A) the owner or operator of the facility; 

8 or 

9 ‘‘(B) whether the facility is under the ju10 risdiction of the Department of Defense or a 

11 military department.’’. 

12 (b) INCLUSION UNDER DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL

13 RESTORATION PROGRAM.—Section 2701 of title 10, 

14 United States Code, is amended— 

15 (1) in paragraph (1) of subsection (a), by strik16 ing ‘‘State-owned’’; 

17 (2) in subparagraph (D) of subsection (c)(1), 

18 by striking ‘‘State-owned’’; and 

19 (3) in paragraph (1) of subsection (d) by insert20 ing ‘‘or at a National Guard facility’’ after ‘‘Sec21 retary’s jurisdiction’’. 

22 (c) ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION ACCOUNTS.— 

23 Section 2703(g)(1) of such title is amended by inserting 

24 ‘‘, a National Guard facility,’’ after ‘‘Department of De25 fense’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5270 IH

1 (d) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

2 (1) REPEAL OF PROVISION.—Section 2707 of 

3 such title is amended by striking subsection (e). 

4 (2) REFERENCE UPDATE.—Section 345(f)(1) of 

5 the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

6 Year 2022 (Public Law 117–81; 135 Stat. 1646; 10 

7 U.S.C. 2715 note) is amended by striking ‘‘facility 

8 where military activities are conducted by the Na9 tional Guard of a State pursuant to section 2707(e) 

10 of title 10, United States Code’’ and inserting ‘‘Na11 tional Guard Facility, as such term is defined in sec12 tion 2700 of title 10, United States Code’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
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-2018-0025-3579

CW Bearing USA, 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/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