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-2018-0025-5652

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 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
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-2018-0025-2658

Primex Family of Companies:

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
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-2018-0025-4995

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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6121

SGRE, 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
#### Ralph V. Twiddy, Jr., et al., Respondents, v Standard Marine Transport Services, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered on or about October 6, 1989, which, *inter alia,*denied that part of defendants’ motion, pursuant to CPLR 3042 (a), seeking to vacate plaintiffs’ demand for a verified bill of particulars with respect to defendants’ affirmative defenses and directed defendants’ compliance therewith, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of striking items numbered 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, 25, 29 and 33 of said demand insofar as they seek to elicit those statutes, regulations, citations or other legal authorities relied upon by defendants in their affirmative defenses and, except as thus modified, affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Plaintiff, seriously injured in an explosion aboard a barge, has sued defendants, alleging, *inter alia,*negligence. In their answer, defendants asserted a number of affirmative defenses, as to which plaintiff thereafter served a demand, containing 36 enumerated requests, for a verified bill of particulars. Defendants moved to vacate the demand, alleging, essentially, *265that it is overbroad and improper since it seeks information which is generally obtained through discovery and not a demand for a bill of particulars. The IAS court directed defendants to serve a bill of particulars, as demanded, on the affirmative defenses.

The purpose of a bill of particulars is to amplify the pleadings, limit the proof and prevent surprise at trial. *(Palazzo v Abbate,*45 AD2d 760.) While a bill of particulars is not an evidence-producing device *(supra),*the rule is not an inflexible one. *(See, e.g., Hayes v Utica Mut. Ins. Co.,*24 AD2d 829; *see also,*Siegel, Practice Commentary, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3041:2, at 623.)

The information sought here by the demand for a bill of particulars is undisputably information which normally would be obtainable through discovery. There is, however, no showing that defendants will suffer any prejudice by providing the information requested. A rigid adherence to the purpose behind a bill of particulars in this case would only result in additional meaningless time-consuming motion practice. We thus decline to vacate plaintiffs’ demand in its entirety. We note, however, that items 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, 25, 29 and 33 of the demand require defendants to divulge each statute, regulation, citation or other legal authority upon which they will rely for their affirmative defenses at the time of trial. Since these affirmative defenses do not raise any allegation as to such violations, defendants are not obliged to specify the relied-upon statutes, regulations, ordinances, citations or legal authority. *(Kwang Sik Kim v A & K Plastic Prods.,*133 AD2d 219, 220.) Accordingly, those requests in items 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, 25, 29 and 33 of plaintiffs’ demand which seek the specification of statutes, regulations, citations or other legal authorities are stricken. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Carro and Milonas, JJ.
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-2018-0025-4874

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
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-2018-0025-5603

Tianhai Electric North 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 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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 9 (Friday, January 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 3196]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-851]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION REFORM


Central Texas Roundtables

AGENCY: U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform.

ACTION: Announcement of commission roundtables.

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

    This notice announces two roundtables to be held by the U.S. 
Commission on Immigration Reform in Austin, TX on January 18, 1995. The 
Commission, created by Section 141 of the Immigration Act of 1990, is 
mandated to review the implementation and impact of U.S. immigration 
policy and report its findings to Congress. An interim report, U.S. 
Immigration Policy: Restoring Credibility, was issued on September 30, 
1994; the final report is due in 1997.
    The roundtable participants will include the Commissioners, 
researchers, government officials, representatives of local 
organizations, and other experts. The first roundtable will examine the 
economic and labor impacts of immigration on Texas, with a focus on the 
Austin-San Antonio Area. The Commission seeks to gain greater 
understanding of the effects of immigrants on the region's labor market 
(both high- and low-skill labor), the impact of employment-based 
immigration on high-tech industry, and immigration in the context of 
NAFTA.
    The second roundtable will focus on the effects of immigration on 
social and community relations in central Texas. Issues involving 
absorption of immigrants into the local community, naturalization and 
civic participation of immigrants, and the effect of immigrants on 
public services will be addressed.

DATE: January 18, 1995.

TIME: 9 am-12:30 pm (Economic and Labor Impacts); 2 pm-5 pm (Social and 
Community Relations).

ADDRESSES: Hyatt Regency Austin on Town Lake, Texas Rooms 6 and 7, 208 
Baron Springs Drive, Austin, TX 78704, 512-480-2038.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Paul Donnelly, (202) 673-5348.

    Dated: January 3, 1995.
Susan Martin,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 95-851 Filed 1-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-97-M
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-2018-0025-6034

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 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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 5, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 17381]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8350]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY


Culturally Significant Objects Imported For Exhibition; 
Determination

    Notice is hereby given of the following determination: Pursuant to 
the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 
985, 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978 (43 FR 
13359, March 29, 1978), and Delegation Order No. 85-5 of June 27, 1985 
(50 FR 27393, July 2, 1985), I hereby determine that the objects in the 
exhibit, ``Drawings From The Albertina: Landscape in the Age of 
Rembrandt'' (see list\1\) imported from abroad for the temporary 
exhibition without profit within the United States, are of cultural 
significance. These objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements 
with the foreign lenders. I also determine that the temporary 
exhibition of the objects at The Drawing Center, New York, NY, from on 
or about April 20, 1995, to on or about June 3, 1995, and at the 
Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, TX, from on or about July 2, 1995, to 
on or about September 3, 1995, is in the national interest.

    \1\A copy of this list may be obtained in contacting Ms. Lorie 
Nierenberg of the Office of the General Counsel of USIA. The 
telephone number is 202/619-6084, and the address is Room 700, U.S. 
Information Agency, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Public notice of this determination is ordered to be published in 
the Federal Register.

    Dated: March 31, 1995.
Les Jin,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 95-8350 Filed 4-4-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8230-01-M
#### Fidelity New York, FSB, Respondent, v Hanover Companies, Incorporated, Appellant. (Action No. 1.) Fidelity New York, FSB, Respondent, v Gerald Guterman & Co. Inc., Appellant. (Action No. 2.) Fidelity New York, FSB, Respondent, v Gerald Guterman, Appellant. (Action No. 3.)

In three related actions to recover on promissory notes, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Morrison, J.), dated December 9, 1988, which denied their motion to vacate judgments entered against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The judgments entered against the defendants were based on three promissory notes. In their motion to vacate those *583judgments, the defendants alleged that one of the promissory notes and a rider bear forged signatures. The defendants do not dispute that the loans were made, and they concede their indebtedness. Their moving papers do not allege that the judgments themselves were procured by fraud *(see,*CPLR 5015 [a] [3]). Moreover, the evidence purportedly establishing fraud with respect to the execution of the promissory notes was readily obtainable at the time the actions were commenced. The allegations of fraud are nothing more than newly interposed theories of defense which could and should have been asserted prior to the entry of the judgments *(see, Central Funding Co. v Kimler,*54 AD2d 748; *Abacus Real Estate Fin. Co. v P.A.R. Constr. & Maintenance Corp.,*128 AD2d 821).

Moreover, the defendants’ excuse of inadvertence due to the press of time in originally responding to the motions for summary judgment in lieu of complaint is unavailing as the defendants took over 30 days to prepare their initial responses and an additional two weeks to serve additional papers *(see, Habacht v Caroccia,*133 AD2d 338). Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Rubin and Miller, JJ., concur.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-7468

Nissan 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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
**Exhibit 32.1**

#### ** **

#### **SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS**

 

ThisCertificate is being delivered pursuant to the requirements of Section 1350of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedures) of theUnited States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

Theundersigned, who are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer ofBehringer Harvard Opportunity REIT I, Inc. (the “Company”), each herebycertify as follows:

 

TheQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company (the “Report”), whichaccompanies this Certificate, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

Dated this 14thday of August, 2008.

 

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

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----