alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
GROVER SELLERS Auwrrlv11. TEXAS

,: ' ". " Mr. T. M, Trimble ,': First Assistant Superintendent State Department of'Education ,,., ,,, _, .~ _: ~ Austin, Texas I Dear Sir: Opinion No, ~0-5813 " Be: Under the facts submitted, may the EqualizationBoard of ,the.Texarlcana, Texas, Public Schools~ evaluateand 'assess for taxationmonqy.and'se-- curitiesof certain .estates deosited in the TexarkanaNational Bank t
You have submitted the followingquestion, submitted to you,byMr. H. W. Stillwell, Superintendent of the Texarkana schools: "The Equalization

Board duly appointedby the School Board, equalized taxes and made i.ts,,report. In,s~ doping,

it put on the tax roll a certain assessmentagainst three estates which it evaluated itself. The assessment ~against

these estates was in each caae~ for money and~ar securitieswhich in the opinion of the~.equalization Bo~ard the sstate~s

had on deposit or in safety depasit.boxes~in the TcxarkanaNational Bank. It was of then opinion that each estate had at lea89 as much as the Board.included on theaaaassment,~ The Board did not make such assessmentagainstany other taxpayer or any other taxpaying estate in the School District. The School Board desires to know whether such assessmenton the tax roll by the Equalization Board is le~gal

and would stand."
In the case of Burnett vs. Tax Collector,13 S.W. (2d) page 613, Judge Gaines of the Supreme Court of Texas said: "The, functionof the board of equalizationis to correct errors in the valuationof property that has been properly assessed. It has no power to add to the rolls propertynot previouslyassessed, or to take from them propertywhich they embrace, GalvestonCo. vs. Gas Company, '72 Tex. 509, 10 S.W. Rep. 583."c

Mr. T. M, Trimble,page 2 0-5813

In the case of Crocker V. Santo Causal IndependentSchool District et al, 116 S.W. (2d) page 750 the court used the following lanwge a "The assessmentof property ie peculiarlythe duty and responsibilityof a tax assessor. The jurisdiction of the commiseionerst court with reference to assessments is confined to raising or lowering assessmentsas incident to its duties as a board of equalization. It has no power to add property to the tax rolls not previouslyassessed,nor to take property from them!
In view of the foregoing authorities you are advised that the question propoundedby Mr. Stillwell is answered in the negat.ive~. The Board of Equalizationexceded its authoritywhen it added to'the tax,rollsproperty not previouslyassessed.~

APPROVED FEB. ,l,1944 GROVER SELLERS ATTORNEY GENERALS

OF TEXAS Yours very truly

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

CFG:ncd;ml **BY** C. **F.** Gibson Assistant
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-2018-0025-5710

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
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7745

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus IZELL GRANVILLE, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior District Judge. (1:02-cr-00366-WLO; 1:05-cv-00520-WLO) Submitted: March 29, 2007 Decided: April 4, 2007 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Izell Granville, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Izell Granville, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and the district court’s order denying Granville’s motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Granville has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 23.1
















                          Independent Auditors' Consent



We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
33-70478 and 333-62245) on Form S-8 and (Nos. 333-12893 and 333-47621) on Form
S-3 of Prime Medical Services, Inc. of our report dated February 14, 2003,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Prime Medical Services, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related consolidated
statements of income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years
in the three-year period ended December 31, 2002 which report appears in the
December 31, 2002, Annual Report on Form 10-K of Prime Medical Services, Inc.
Our report refers to a change in the method of accounting for goodwill and other
intangible assets during 2002.


/s/:KPMG LLP
------------

Austin, Texas
March 12, 2003
<PAGE>

                                 New York State
                               Department of State
                     Division of Corporations, State Records
                           and Uniform Commercial Code
                                 41 State Street
                                Albany, NY 12231

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                     OF THE
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                         AMERICAN BIO MEDICA CORPORATION

                Under Section 805 of the Business Corporation Law

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

FIRST:  The name of the Corporation is American Bio Medica Corporation.

SECOND: The Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation was filed with the
Department of State of the State of New York on April 10, 1986 under the name,
American Micro Media, Inc.

THIRD: The amendment to the Corporation's Certificate of Incorporation effected
by this Certificate of Amendment is as follows:

             The Corporation's Certificate of Incorporation, as amended,
             presently authorizes the issuance 35,000,000 shares, of which
             30,000,000 shares are common shares, par value $.01 per share and
             5,000,000 are preferred shares, $.01 par value per share. The
             amendment would increase the number of common shares the Company
             has the authority to issue from 30,000,000 to 50,000,000 thereby
             increasing the total number of authorized shares to 55,000,000.

To accomplish the foregoing amendment, the full text of Article "FOURTH" of the
Corporation's Certificate of Incorporation is hereby amended to read as follows:

             "FOURTH: "The aggregate number of shares which the Corporation
             shall have the authority to issue is 55,000,000 shares, par value
             $.01 per share of which 50,000,000 million are common shares, $.01
             par value per share and 5,000,000 are preferred shares. The Board
             of Directors may divide the preferred shares into one or more
             series and issue such preferred shares from time to time with such
             preference, privileges, limitation and relative rights as it may
             determine."

FOURTH: The foregoing amendment to the Corporation's Certificate of
Incorporation was authorized by vote of the Corporation's Board of Directors,
followed by a vote of a majority of all outstanding shares entitled to vote
thereon at a meeting of shareholders.

Dated: October 17, 2001                             /s/ Keith E. Palmer
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Chief Financial Officer



American Bio Medica Corporation
122 Smith Road
Kinderhook, New York 12106
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-2018-0025-6304

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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 68 (Monday, April 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 18094]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8674]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. EL95-35-000]


Kootenai Electric Cooperative, Inc., Clearwater Power Co., Idaho 
County Light & Power Cooperative Association, Inc., and Northern 
Lights, Inc. v. Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County; Notice 
of Filing

April 4, 1995.
    Take notice that on March 2, 1995, Kootenai Electric Cooperative, 
Inc., Clearwater Power Company, Idaho County Light & Power Cooperative 
Association, Inc., and Northern Lights, Inc. (collectively referred to 
as ``the Idaho Cooperatives'') tendered for filing a complaint against 
Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County (the District). In their 
complaint, the Idaho Cooperatives request the Commission to determine 
and fix the applicable portion of capacity and output to be made 
available to the Idaho Cooperatives from the Priests Rapids Project 
upon relicensing and expiration of existing power sales contracts.
    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 285.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests and the answer to the complaint should be filed on 
or before April 21, 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 must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public 
inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-8674 Filed 4-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Killbuck Bancshares, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Luther E. Proper, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted pursuant to Section 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Luther E. Proper   
|    |  | Luther E. Proper       
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer
|    |  | November 14, 2007      

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Killbuck Bancshares,
Inc. and will be retained by Killbuck Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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, or the Report, of Universal Truckload Services, Inc., or the Company, on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 27,
2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Donald B. Cochran, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Robert E. Sigler, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, respectively, that (1) the Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: August 4, 2009



/s/ Donald B. CochranDonald B. CochranPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Robert E. SiglerRobert E. SiglerVice President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not
being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
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-2018-0025-5414

PEER Bearing Company:

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
Exhibit 12.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 302(a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Jacob Even-Ezra:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Magal Security Systems
Ltd.;

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 statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
Subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) [Reserved]

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: June 30, 2005

/s/ Jacob Even-Ezra*
--------------------
Jacob Even-Ezra
Chief Executive Officer
* The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
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-2018-0025-5602

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