alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Thomas, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Calabretta, J.), rendered February 17, 1988, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and possession of burglar’s tools, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant went up the front steps of a private house at 1:30 p.m. on December 12, 1986, and rang the bell. When no one answered the door, he entered the basement, where he was found standing by a police officer who responded to a "911” call made by one of the complainants who was in the house. The defendant possessed, among other things, a pair of pliers, two screwdrivers, a jimmy and a sheet rock knife on his person. Based on these facts, a reasonable juror could infer that the defendant knowingly entered the dwelling with intent to commit a crime therein and could discredit his exculpatory tale that he entered the premises in order to recover tires he sold to one of the complainants but for which he had not been paid. Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt is not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, his conviction on *743the charge of possession of burglar’s tools was not repugnant to his acquittal on the charge of criminal mischief in the fourth degree. When there is a claim that repugnant jury verdicts have been rendered on an indictment involving multiple counts, a verdict concerning a particular count may be set aside only when it is inherently inconsistent in view of the elements of each crime as charged to the jury *(see, People v Tucker,*55 NY2d 1). Pursuant to this standard, the defendant’s acquittal of criminal mischief did not negate an essential element of the possession of burglar’s tools *(see, People v Goodfriend,*64 NY2d 695; *People v Rios,*150 AD2d 620).

The trial court’s instructions to the jury were proper. Contrary to the defendant’s claim, the court properly refused to charge the jury on the claim of right defense since such a defense is only available in a larceny prosecution *(see,*Penal Law § 155.15 [1]; *People v Scunziano,*140 AD2d 645; *People v Hodges,*113 AD2d 514) and the People here did not specify, nor were they required to specify *(see, People v Mackey,*49 NY2d 274; *People v Middleton,*140 AD2d 550), that the defendant intended to commit larceny when he knowingly entered the dwelling. Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.
Dear USTR Representative:

On behalf of Hartland Controls, LLC, we respectfully request the correction of Federal Register Vol. 84, 

No. 183, September 20, 2019 (49584), Annex 2 (235) in which a typographical error in voltage is 

reported.

Docket ID: USTR-2018-0025-7358

Organization Name: Hartland Controls, LLC

Summary of Issue: Current incorrect reference (marked in blue) in the approval published on September 

20, 2019 (Fed. Reg Vol 84 No 183 at 49584): Annex 2 (235) currently lists the voltage “not exceeding 100 

V.” Hartland Control’s USTR Section 301 product exclusion approval is for an auxiliary switch, as 

described in Annex 2 (235) below, for a voltage not exceeding 1000 V, rather than the 100 V limitation, 

for your ease of reference. 

Amendment Request by Hartland Controls LLC to Annex 2 (235): The approved exclusion for the subject 

auxiliary switch should have been described as (requested change in yellow): Single-Pole, double-throw 

switches, for a voltage not exceeding 1000 V, each with a movable contact arm permitting the opening 

and closing of contact points (described in statistical reporting number 8536.50.9065) 

For background purposes, the auxiliary switch at issue is described as described in docket # USTR-2018-

0025-7358 as follows:

The Product of Concern, Harland Controls Auxiliary Switches (the “Product”), is an electrical apparatus 

for switching electrical circuits in a Hartland Control contactor that is separate from the main circuit 

which operates for a voltage not exceeding 1000 V. The Product is classified as HTSUS 8536.50.9065. 

The Product allows the contactor to open and close the contacts in another connecting device. The 

Product is a single-pole, double-throw (“SPDT”) switch operated by a movable contact arm assembly 

used to indicate the position of the open or closed contacts within the electrical circuits and operate on 

both normally open or normally closed contactors. The Product is an add-on component available for 

switching the electrical circuits in a connecting device in conjunction with DP Contactors. The Product 

HTSUS 8536.50.9065 differentiates from other electrical switching apparatus in the HTSUS 8536.5090 

ten digit subheadings in that it is not a rotary, push-button, snap action, knife, slide or limit electrical 

switching apparatus. The Products contain the UL, CE and CSA rating label, HCC part number, contact 

rating, country of origin and customer number where applicable. 

The Products range in size from 68 mm (length) to 80mm (width) and weigh approximately.5 to one 

pound. The attached specification sheet provides a photograph of the Product along with additional 

specifications. The Products are identified on the Commercial Invoice as “Auxiliary Switch” with part 

numbers HCCY1 XXXXXXXX and HCDY1 XXXXXXXX, where the “X” represents the current device rating, 
termination type, special features, and customer number. The Products are classified under HTSUS 

8536.50.9065 

We are very appreciative for your assistance on this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you 

require additional information. 

Kind regards, 

Megan Finkelstein
**Exhibit
      32.1**






**Principal
      Executive Officer’s Certification Pursuant To**


**Section
      1350**


**(furnished,
      not filed)**







In
      connection with the Annual Report of GeoGlobal Resources Inc. (the Company)
      on
      Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jean Paul Roy,
      President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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







/s/
      Jean Paul Roy







Jean
      Paul
      Roy


President
      and Chief Executive Officer


April
      16,
      2007
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Annual  Report of American Bio Medica  Corporation
(the  "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2005 (the "Report"), I,
Stan Cipkowski,  Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

            (1)   The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



                                      /s/ Stan Cipkowski
                                      ------------------
                                      Stan Cipkowski

                                      Chief Executive Officer
                                      (Principal Executive Officer)

                                      March 31, 2005
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent v. James Robert BLACK, Appellant. James Robert BLACK, Appellant v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. WD 46878, WD 49354.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 21, 1995.

*394Robert Alan Kelly, Columbia, for appellant.

Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before SPINDEN, P.J., and ULRICH and SMART, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

In this consolidated appeal, James Robert Black appeals his judgment of conviction for passing a bad check, § 570.120, RSMo 1986, and the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm the judgment and the denial of his motion. Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT
32.2


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002














In
connection with the Annual Report of GeoGlobal Resources Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Allan J. Kent, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge:





1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange
      Act of 1934; and





2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
      for the periods presented.

















/s/
Allan J. Kent


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


Allan J.
Kent


Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


March 31,
2010
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-2018-0025-7335

Danieli Corporation: 

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

_5-30-2019.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
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 18599]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8931]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. MT95-10-000]

Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline; Notice of Compliance Filing

April 6, 1995.
    Take notice that on April 3, 1995, Williston Basin Interstate 
Pipeline Company (Williston Basin), tendered for filing revised tariff 
sheets to Second Revised Volume No. 1 of its FERC Gas Tariff.
    Williston Basin states that the revised tariff sheets reflect 
changes to the list of possible shared personnel and updates references 
to Order Nos. 566, et seq.
    Williston Basin has requested that the Commission accept this 
filing to become effective May 3, 1995.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 
20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before April 13, 1995. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party to the 
proceeding must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are 
on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-8931 Filed 4-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-7452

Danieli Corporation:

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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-6601

Petroleum Equipment & Services Association:

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 did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

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
1

NO. CAAP-22-0000394

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS 

TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF CWALT, INC. ALTERNATIVE 

LOAN TRUST 2006-12CB, MORTGAGE PASS-THRU CERTIFICATES SERIES 

2006-12CB, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GABI K. COLLINS, DefendantAppellant, and ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF KEMOO BY THE 

LAKE; DONALD COURTNEY BROWN; JOHN DOES 1-20; JANE DOES 1-20; DOE 

CORPORATIONS 1-20; DOE ENTITIES 1-20; AND DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 

1-20, Defendants-Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

(CIVIL NO. 1CC161001062)

ORDER

(By: McCullen, J.)

Upon consideration of the Defendant-Appellant Gabi K.

Collins's "Motion Requesting Leave to File a Reply to PlaintiffAppellee's Memorandums in Opposition to Motion for Mandatory 

Judicial Notice and Emergency Injunctive Relief," filed 

August 11, 2024, the papers in support, and the record, it 

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-22-0000394

13-AUG-2024

08:49 AM

Dkt. 228 ORD
2

appears that Collins seeks to file a reply memorandum pursuant 

to Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 27(a).

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is granted. Within five 

(5) days from the date of this order, Collins shall file a reply 

no longer than 3 pages in length.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, August 13, 2024.

/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen

Associate Judge
#### John R. WELLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 51999.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

May 21, 1996.

Jarrett Aiken Johnson, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Attorney General, Jefferson City, for Respondent.

Before LOWENSTEIN, P.J., and HANNA and SPINDEN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

From an order denying relief under Rule 24.035 on the basis of the escape rule, the Movant requests relief for failure to find whether his escape adversely affected the criminal justice system. Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
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

See attached. 

HTS code: 8803.90.9060 Marina Yang Zipline International Inc. Importer NON/A
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:

NONO NA NA

See attached.
PUBLIC VERSION
$[*********] [******]

$[*********]

INPUT

20.0

$[*********]

[******]

[******]

0.05

PUBLIC VERSION
Consistent with USTR's Section 301 notice, OMRON Management Center of America, Inc. requests

confidential treatment for the information designated as business confidential in this submission. Such

information consists of information that would not customarily be released to the public, including

business or trade secrets regarding production costs and processes, data on sales, product characteristics

customers, destinations, and other product, sales, and cost-related business secrets. Business confidential

information has been indicated herein by enclosing it in single brackets (“[ ]”). A public version of these

comments is also being filed with all confidential information removed.

OMRON in the US is the only designer of this product and only supplier of this component.

POWER WINDOW SWITCH is a molded plastic switch, and is used only for automotive purposes to

raise and lower windows, of which is an OEM-specified dimension. It is only used for further assembly

of components which go into domestic automobile production, which is specified by auto manufacturer.

This product is not a target of the US Administration's 301 investigation regarding Intellectual Property

concerns. This is not a concern to IP transfer and impressment. This product contains no IP of interest

related to autonomous vehicle production.

The tariff action ultimately poses a risk of significant damage to OMRON, the domestic automobile

industry, and ultimately the US consumer as a increase in price. Like in the case of similar approvals for

vehicle components at the HTS level, OMRON views this product in the same manner. Immediate

movement of production to a US manufacturer or another country would pose significant re-tooling

costs, significant amounts of time, and approvals pertaining to consumer automobile safety standards are

costly and would take a significant amount of time to obtain.

OMRON Management Center of America, Inc. believes that CBP can easily exclude the POWER

WINDOW SWITCH in question based solely on the product description. The following are draft CBP

exclusion instructions:

"POWER WINDOW SWITCH; flat rectangular assembly with two notched corners and two switches:

one "u" shaped in the middle of the switch, and one toggle switches oriented with the length of the

assembly; Plastic case with knob assemblies used for POWER WINDOW SWITCH (Passenger SW in

front).Consist: - 1 Plastic case- 1 auto window knobs and 1 door lockout knob with 2 springs and 2

plungers to drive the knob movement;- 1 plastic light guide for light transmission; Case dimensions

105.5mm x 64mm x 46mm Knob (A1) dimensions: 27.34mm x20.08mm x28.26mm Knob (D/L L)

dimensions: 28.8mm x16mm x35.5mm."

This information will be contained on the invoice from the supplier listing the fact that it is a sealed

miniature basic switch with the above features.

PUBLIC VERSION