alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Organization Name:

Note: Representatives submitting on behalf of an organization must enter information below.

Requestor Representative:

Section 301 Investigation: China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology 

Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation - Form to Request Exclusion of Product

When submitting a product exclusion request using this form, enter the specified 

information in the following fields and explain the basis and rationale for your statements. 

By completing this form, you certify that the information provided is complete and 

correct to the best of your knowledge. 

1. Indicate whether the comment contains business confidential information (BCI), is a public

document, or is a public version of a BCI document.

3.

2. Please provide a complete and detailed description of the product of concern:

4.

5. Requestor's relationship to the product:

CONTINUED BELOW

*

10-digit HTSUS item number* for product you wish to address in this product exclusion request:

Use numerical characters only with no special characters (example: 1023456789). For help in finding 

the HTSUS item number associated with your product, see https://hts.usitc.gov/

1

7.

6. Does this submission in regulations.gov include additional attachments?

Please indicate whether any additional attachment contains business confidential

information (BCI), is a public document, or is a public version of a BCI document.

VERSION 1

Requestor Information

Requestor Name (Last, First):

Public Version of BCI

HCL1004, 113 ton Capacity, 3.94 in Stroke, Single-Acting, High Tonnage, Lock Nut Hydraulic 

Cylinder; Maximum Operating Pressure psi: 10000; Weight Kgs: 44; Oil Capacity Advance cm3: 

1431; Stroke Ranges mm: 95 - 119

8412210075 Schmidt, Jackie Enerpac Jackie SchmidtImporter Yes Contains BCI
END 2

8. Is this product, or a comparable product, available from sources in the United States?:

VERSION 1

11. Please provide information in support your request, taking account of the instructions

provided in Section B of the Federal Register notice (note: text entered below can extend

beyond the apparent size of this box).

9. Is this product, or a comparable product, available from sources in third countries?:

10. Please provide the value and quantity (with units) of the Chinese-origin product of concern

that you purchased for each calendar year specified. Limit this figure to the products

purchased by your firm (or by members of your trade association) alone. Please provide 

estimates if precise figures are unavailable.

2016 Value:

2015 Value:

2017 Value:

2016 Quantity:

2015 Quantity:

2017 Quantity:

No No BCI BCI BCI BCI BCI BCI

See addendum for additional information.
#### Sam Wendell RYAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 499-94.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

Dec. 14, 1994.

James R. Kuhn, Houston, for appellant.

John B. Holmes, Jr., Dist. Atty., Karen A. Clark and Renee Magee, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for State.

*OPINION ON MOTION TO ABATE APPEAL*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of failure to stop and give information after an automobile collision. Punishment was assessed by the jury at 180 days in the Harris County jail.

The Court of Appeals remanded the cause to the trial court for a new punishment hearing. *Ryan v. State,*874 S.W.2d 299 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st] 1994). The Court of Appeals found a new punishment hearing was necessary because the trial court improperly restricted voir dire examination of prospective jurors on an issue related to punishment.

The State has filed a Petition for Discretionary Review from the decision by the court of appeals. We have also received a “Motion to Abate” the appeal filed on behalf of appellant. Attached to the motion is a certified copy of appellant’s death certificate. Appellant died on September 17, 1994.

The death of an appellant during the pen-dency of an appeal deprives both this Court and the court of appeals of jurisdiction. See *Molitor v. State,*862 S.W.2d 615 (Tex.Cr.App.1993). Under these circumstances, the appropriate disposition is the abatement of the appeal. Tex.R.App.Pro.Rule 9(b). Accordingly, the appellant’s “Motion to Abate” is granted, the State’s Petition for Discretionary Review is dismissed, the Court of Appeals is directed to withdraw its prior opinion and the appeal is permanently abated.*

*

This cause demonstrates the imprudence of releasing an opinion for publication to a publishing company before this Court disposes of a Petition for Discretionary Review. See Tex.R.App.Pro. Rule 90.
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-2018-0025-5816

Magna Electronics: 

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
| 1.     | the      Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008      (the “Form 10Q”) 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 10Q 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  10Q                                       |

| Dated:      August 14, 2008  | /s/      Chester P. Aldridge                                                                      |
|-----------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                              | Chester      P. Aldridge                                                                          |
|                              | Chief      Executive Officer (Principal      Executive Officer and Principal Accounting  Officer) |
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5302 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5302

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 25, 2024

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To designate the Air and Marine Operations Marine Unit of the U.S. 
  Customs and Border Protection located at 101 Km 18.5 in Cabo Rojo, 
         Puerto Rico, as the ``Michel O. Maceda Marine Unit''.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

     This Act may be cited as the ``Michel O. Maceda Memorial Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

     Congress finds the following:
            (1) Marine Interdiction Agent Michel O. Maceda served 
        honorably in the United States Army as a wheeled vehicle 
        mechanic prior to joining the United States Border Patrol as an 
        Agent in Douglas, Arizona, in April 2016.
            (2) Agent Maceda became a Marine Interdiction Agent with 
        U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Air and Marine Operations 
        in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, in 2021.
            (3) On November 17, 2022, Agent Maceda and 2 other agents 
        were conducting a drug interdiction stop off the coast of 
        Puerto Rico, during which the agents boarded the target vessel.
            (4) During the stop, Agent Maceda was mortally wounded when 
        1 of the occupants of the vessel shot the boarding agents with 
        a firearm.
            (5) Agent Maceda is survived by his daughter, brother, and 
        parents.

SEC. 3. DESIGNATION.

    The Air and Marine Operations Marine Unit of the U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection located at 101 Km 18.5 in Cabo Rojo, Puerto Rico, 
shall forever be known and designated as the ``Michel O. Maceda Marine 
Unit''.

SEC. 4. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the marine unit referred to in section 3 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Michel O. Maceda Marine 
Unit''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 24, 2024.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### Deandre BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 62178.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

May 25, 1993.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied June 23, 1993.

Application to Transfer Denied Aug. 17, 1993.

David C. Hemingway, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before AHRENS, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the denial of his 24.-035 motion based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm per Rule 84.16(b) and 30.25(b). The findings of the motion court are not clearly erroneous and no error of law appears. No precedential value would be served by an opinion. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information, only.
EXHIBIT 99.1

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

           I, Al Monaco, certify that:

 

1.          I have reviewed this report on Form 40-F/A of Enbridge Inc.; and

 

2.          Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 

 

Date:               May 6, 2014

 

 

 
| /s/ Al Monaco                             |   |
|-------------------------------------------|--------|
| Al Monaco                                 |   |
| President & Chief   Executive Officer |   |

 

----
#### Eugene E. Le Doux, Appellant, v City of Rochester et al., Defendants, and Joseph R. Hansen, Respondent.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff, a forensic chemist employed at Monroe County’s Public Safety Laboratory, alleges that he suffered an ear injury as the result of the firing of a revolver at the laboratory by a coemployee. Although he accepted workers’ compensation benefits, plaintiff contends that he is entitled to bring an action against the coemployee for conduct outside the scope of the coemployee’s duties and done intentionally to startle or scare plaintiff. Plaintiff appeals from that portion of an order granting the coemployee’s cross motion for summary judgment upon the ground that benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Law are the exclusive remedy.

It is well established that injuries resulting from horseplay, pranks or other frivolous acts by coemployees during their work day are compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Law as an incident of the work *(Christey v Gelyon,*88 AD2d 769, 770). If the injuries occur during the scope of the defendant coemployee’s work, compensation benefits are the exclusive remedy, and a common-law action may not be maintained against the coemployee (Workers’ Compensation Law §29; *Christey v Gelyon, supra).*"But if defendant’s acts are outside the scope of his employment either because excessive or because they occur after the horseplay has terminated, defendant may be denied the protection of the statute” *(Christey v Gelyon, supra,*at 770).

In this case, the defendant demonstrated that the test firing occurred during employment; that handling weapons was part of the duties of a forensic chemist; and that, although the test firing of weapons was not part of the coemployee’s job responsibilities, his act of firing the gun constituted no more than horseplay or a prank. Plaintiff’s evidentiary submission failed to raise a triable question of fact on this issue. Further, the complaint contains no allegation that the coemployee acted deliberately with an intent to injure plaintiff; instead, the complaint alleges that the coemployee acted negligently, carelessly and recklessly. Under the circumstances, Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment *(see, Christey v Gelyon, supra; Moakler v Blanco,*47 AD2d 614; *Matter of Piatek v Plymouth Rock Provision Co.,*15 *1050AD2d 405). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, DePasquale, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Den-man, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.
Exhibit 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The
Board of Directors
Cymer, Inc.:

We
consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-16559, No. 333-67491, No. 333-48242,
No. 333-69736, and No. 333-58554) on Form S-8 and in the registration statement (No. 333-39101) on Form S-3 of Cymer, Inc.
of our report dated February 2, 2002, except as to Note 16, which is as of March 25, 2002, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Cymer, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2000 and 2001, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended
December 31, 2001, which report appears in the December 31, 2001 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cymer, Inc.



San
Diego, California
March 25, 2002

---

QuickLinks
COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

Primary:                            1996           1995          1994
     Average Shares
       Outstanding .........      2,004,781      1,989,129    2,012,500
     Net effect of
       assumed exercise of
       stock options .......         77,014        180,621      190,750
     Total .................      2,081,794      2,169,750    2,203,250
     Net income ............     ($177,627)     $2,026,007   $1,767,852
     Net income per share ..        ($0.09)          $0.93        $0.80
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-2018-0025-4682

II-VI 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 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-2018-0025-6147

Yanfeng US Automotive Interior Systems I 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/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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 13, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2283

Signode Industrial Group LLC:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20. 

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

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

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
Exhibit 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY



|                                              |  |                                                            |  |                                               
|--------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------
|NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                            |  | STATE OR OTHERJURISDICTION 
OFINCORPORATION ORORGANIZATION |  | OTHER NAMES UNDERWHICH
SUBSIDIARYDOES BUSINESS
|Cave Springs, Inc.                            |  | Delaware                                                   |  | N/A                                           
|                                              |  |                                                           
|Destination Maternity Apparel Private Limited |  | India                                                      |  | N/A                                           
|                                              |  |                                                           
|Mothers Work Canada, Inc.                     |  | Delaware                                                   |  | N/A
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-2018-0025-5100

A.W. Chesterton Company:

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