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

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6964

Ledvance 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
NOTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ REMEDIOS LABRADOR,
Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent

______________________

2024

- 1986

______________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. SF

- 0831

- 22

- 0342

- I

- 1

.

______________________
O R D E R

The petitioner having failed to pay the docketing fee required by Federal Circuit Rule 52 (a) (1), and to file the required Statement Concerning Discrimination, and to file the brief required by Federal Circuit Rule 31 (a) within the time permitted, it is

ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in Case: 24-1986 Document: 7 Page: 1 Filed: 09/10/2024L ABRADOR V

. MSPB 2

accordance with the rules.

FOR THE COURT

September 10, 2024 Date

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: September 10, 2024 Case: 24-1986 Document: 7 Page: 2 Filed: 09/10/2024
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6087

ANTHONY LLOYD , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. GARRETT GLENNON, Deputy State ’ s Attorney for Baltimore County, Maryland; J. PHILIP MORGAN , Defendants

- Appellees ,

a nd WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCE, INC.; CONTAH NIMELY, M.D.; LORI SLAVICK, P.A. , Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. ( 1:16

- cv
- 02160

- JKB )

Submitted : May 17, 2018 Decided: May 21, 2018

Before KING and AGEE , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Anthony Lloyd , Appellant Pro Se

.
Unpublished opinions are not binding preceden t in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Anthony Lloyd seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action against some, but not all, Defendants. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (20 12), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). The order Lloyd seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocut ory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisi onal process.
DISMISSED
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-2018-0025-6633

Alps Electric (North America), Inc:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20.

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

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

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

#### **CERTIFICATEOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND FINANCIAL OFFICERS**

#### ** **

This Certificate is being delivered pursuant to therequirements of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes andCriminal Procedures) of the United States Code and shall not be relied on byany person for any other purpose.

 

The undersigned, who are the Chief Executive Officerand Chief Financial Officer of Behringer Harvard Opportunity REIT I, Inc. (the “Company”), each hereby certify as follows:

 

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company(the “Report”), which accompanies this Certificate, fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,and all information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated this 15th day of May, 2006.

 
|   | /s/ Robert M. Behringer                      |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Robert M. Behringer, Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                                         |
|   |                                         |
|   | /s/ Gary S. Bresky                           |   |
|   | Gary S. Bresky, Chief Financial Officer      |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the registrant and will beretained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-1254

DONALD N. REAVES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

J. SHAWN OLIVER; CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT

COMPANY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (CA-98-2683-22-4)

Submitted: July 31, 2000 Decided: September 15, 2000

Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald N. Reaves, Appellant Pro Se. Kathy Jane Price Elmore,

Florence, South Carolina; Edgar Lloyd Willcox, II, WILLCOX, BUYCK

& WILLIAMS, P.A., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Donald N. Reaves appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting

the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See

Reaves v. Oliver, No. CA-98-2683-22-4 (D.S.C. Jan. 26, 2000). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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-2018-0025-6826

United Scope 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
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2026
CHARLES OGBAEGBE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HAMPTON UNIVERSITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Tommy E. Miller, Magistrate Judge. (CA-04-25-4) Submitted: June 30, 2005 Decided: July 19, 2005 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Austin Goman, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant. Laura G. Fox, LAURA G. FOX, PLLC, Warrenton, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* This case was decided by the magistrate judge upon consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (2000). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Charles I. Ogbaegbe appeals the magistrate judge’s order granting the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. * We review de novo a district court’s order granting summary judgment and view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Price v. Thompson , 380 F.3d 209, 212 (4th Cir. 2004). Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. SeeFed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); United States Dep’t of Labor v. N.C. Growers Ass’n , 377 F.3d 345, 350 (4th Cir. 2004). Summary judgment will be granted unless a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party on the evidence presented. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986). To the extent Ogbaegbe alleges educational malpractice, that is not a cognizable cause of action in Virginia. See Sellers v. School Bd. of the City of Manassas , 960 F. Supp. 1006, 1012 (E.D. Va. 1997), aff’d , 141 F.3d 524 (4th Cir. 1998). Furthermore, no genuine issue of material fact exists to inhibit summary judgment on the breach of contract allegation. Finally, Ogbaegbe’s statutory claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations, as neither he nor his agent, attorney or representative “commenced such action or . . . filed by registered- 3 - mail a written statement of the nature of the claim with the potential defendant or defendants within 180 days of the occurrence of the alleged violation.” Va. Code Ann. § 51.6-45(B) (Michie 2000). Accordingly, we affirm the order of the magistrate judge.

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

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

No. 98-10256 Summary Calendar

MACK HARVEY COLEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus D. POLLOCK, Captain; THOMPSON, Lieutenant; KENNELLY, Lieutenant; HALLEBURTON, Sergeant; GUTIERREZ, Correctional Officer III; MS. PIKE, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:97-CV-69

- - - - - - - - - - October 19, 1998 Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Mack Harvey Coleman, Texas prisoner #552048, proceeding pro

se and in forma pauperis (IFP), appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights lawsuit, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for failure to prosecute, namely, for failure to comply with the magistrate judge’s order to supply clarifying financial information regarding his IFP application. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case for failureNo. 98-10256 -2- to comply with its order. See McCullough v. Lynaugh , 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Coleman’s allegations, raised for the first time in this court, regarding an assault by a fellow inmate on March 7, 1998, and deliberate indifference, retaliation, and discrimination by prison officials in the Neal Unit where Coleman is currently incarcerated, do not amount to plain error. See Douglass v. United Serv. Auto. Ass’n , 79 F.3d 1415, 1428 (5th Cir. 1996)(review of issues raised for the first time on appeal is limited to plain error)(en banc); Robertson v. Plano City of
Texas , 70 F.3d 21, 23 (5th Cir. 1995); see United States v. Vital , 68 F.3d 114, 119 (5th Cir. 1995)(factual issues which are capable of resolution by the district court cannot rise to the level of plain error); Gabel v. Lynaugh , 835 F.2d 124, 125 (5th Cir. 1988). Coleman’s motion for injunctive relief against prison official’s of Neal Unit who were not parties to the instant § 1983 complaint is DENIED. See Fed. R. App. P. 8(a). Coleman’s appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
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-2018-0025-4343

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
      32.2**




**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 Universal Fog, Inc., a Delaware
      corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending
      September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
      “Report”), I, Sun Xin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350),
      that
      to my knowledge:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and





(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





*/s/
                Sun Xin*Sun
                XinChief
                Financial OfficerDate:November
                12, 2008
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.46



                 [Form of Class H Preferred Stock Certificate]
                                  WAM!NET INC.

                             A Minnesota Corporation



No. __                                                  ______ Shares of Class H
                                                     Convertible Preferred Stock


                  This certifies that Winstar Credit Corp. is the registered
holder of Five Thousand (5,000) Shares of Class H Convertible Preferred Stock,
par value $0.01 per share (see reverse side), transferable only on the books of
the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by Attorney upon surrender of
this Certificate properly endorsed.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Corporation has caused this
Certificate to be signed by its duly authorized officers this ____ day of
_______, 2000.



                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                 Edward J. Driscoll III, Chief Executive Officer



                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                 Edward J. Driscoll, Jr., Secretary
<PAGE>

                          [REVERSE SIDE OF CERTIFICATE]



                  The Class H Convertible Preferred Stock has the rights and
preferences as set forth in the Certificate of Designations of Class H Preferred
Stock as filed of record with the Minnesota Secretary of State on October 2,
2000, as amended, a copy of which may be obtained from the Company with no
charge.

                  The securities evidenced hereby are subject to the terms of
that certain Stockholder's Agreement, dated as of March 4, 1999, as amended from
time to time, by and among the Company, Silicon Graphics, Inc., MCI WorldCom,
Inc., Winstar Communications, Inc., Winstar Credit Corp. and Cerberus Partners,
L.P. A copy of this Agreement has been filed with the Secretary of the Company
and is available upon request. The securities evidenced hereby have not been
registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Act") and may not
be resold, transferred or otherwise disposed of other than in a transaction
exempt from, or not subject to, the registration requirements of the Act or
pursuant to an effective registration statement thereunder.







                  For value received, _____________________________ does hereby
sell, assign and transfer unto _________________________________________ Shares
represented by the within Certificate and does hereby irrevocably constitute and
appoint ___________________________________ Attorney to transfer the said Shares
on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in
the premises.

Dated:
      ----------------------------



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



Note: The signature on this assignment must correspond with the name as written
upon the face of the Certificate, in every particular, without alteration or
enlargement or any change whatever.
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-2018-0025-6999

MAHLE Behr USA, 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