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-2018-0025-5601

MAHLE Behr USA, Inc:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 72 (Friday, April 14, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19107]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9281]



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


SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Casper District Advisory Council Meeting; Public Meeting

    The U.S. Small Business Administration Casper District Advisory 
Council will hold a public meeting on Thursday, May 4, 1995 from 2:00 
p.m. to 5:00 p.m. which will be a training session, and Friday, May 5, 
1995, 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., regularly scheduled meeting at the 
Parkway Plaza, 123 West ``E'' Street, Casper, Wyoming, to discuss 
matters as may be presented by members, staff of the U.S. Small 
Business Administration, or others present.
    For further information, write or call Mr. James P. Gallogly, 
District Director, U.S. Small Business Administration, 100 East ``B'' 
Street, P.O. Box 2839, Casper, Wyoming 82602-2839, (307) 261-5761.

    Dated: April 10, 1995.
Dorothy A. Overal,
Director, Office of Advisory Council.
[FR Doc. 95-9281 Filed 4-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 71 (Thursday, April 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 18862]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9075]



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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Request under review by Office of Management and Budget

Acting Agency Clearance Officer: David T. Copenhafer, (202) 942-8800

Upon written request copy available from: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, 450 5th Street, 
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549

Reinstatement: The Focus Group Research Survey

File No. 270-386

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq), the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``Commission'') has resubmitted for the Office of Management and 
Budget approval for a request to execute a focus group research survey. 
The survey will attempt to assess the public's understanding of mutual 
funds and other financial matters. The results will enable the 
Commission to better understand the level of investor comprehension of 
mutual fund prospectuses and financial issues.
    The survey is estimated to require approximately 126.00 burden 
hours. Approximately 40 people will participate in the focus group 
sessions. Each session will contain 10 individuals and will last about 
3.15 hours.
    Direct general comments to the Clearance Officer for the Securities 
and Exchange Commission at the address below. Direct any comments 
concerning the accuracy of the estimated burden hours for compliance 
with the Securities and Exchange Commission to David T. Copenhafer, 
Acting Director, Office of Information Technology, 450 Fifth Street, 
N.W. Washington D.C. 20549 and the Clearance Officer for the Securities 
and Exchange Commission, Office of Management and Budget, Room 3208, 
New Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20503.

    Dated: March 28, 1995.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-9075 Filed 4-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

April 12, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6766

Apex Sourcing & Manufacturing: 

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

_04.15.19.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,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
John J. Serdar, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Civil Action No. 

Sargent Industries Airight Div., 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

APR 2 0 2010 

Clerk. U.S. District & Bankruptcy 

Courts for the District of Columbia 

10 0611 

This matter comes before the Court on consideration of plaintiffs pro se complaint and 

application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Unlike state courts of general jurisdiction, federal district courts have limited jurisdiction. 

A federal district court has jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or 

treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Here, however, the complaint appears to 

arise from an industrial accident resulting in personal injury, which does not appear to implicate 

the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. 

A federal district court also has jurisdiction over civil actions in matters where the 

controversy exceeds $75,000 and where there is complete diversity of citizenship among the 

parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Here, the plaintiff states no demand for damages and it 

appears that both the plaintiff and the defendant are citizens of the state of California. Therefore, 

both the threshold amount in controversy and complete diversity of citizenship among the parties 

are lacking. 
Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint, without prejudice, for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion. 

Date: (~ ('/ 2.c f i)
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5347 

To give preferential consideration to grant applicants that are using such 

funds for school resource officers, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 5, 2023 

Mrs. LESKO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To give preferential consideration to grant applicants that 

are using such funds for school resource officers, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Our Kids 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PREFERENTIAL CONSIDERATION. 

7 Section 1701(c) of the Omnibus Crime Control and 

8 Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10381(c)) is amend9 ed— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5347 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the 

2 end; 

3 (2) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking the period 

4 and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

5 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(4) for the purposes described in subsection 

7 (b)(12).’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

The Board of Directors
First State Bancorporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
333-17727) on Form S-3, and (No. 33-92056 and No. 333-3048) on Form S-8 of First
State Bancorporation of our report dated January 28, 2000, except as to note 15
which is as of March 1, 2000, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
First State Bancorporation and subsidiary as of December 31, 1999 and 1998, and
the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income,
stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 1999, which report appears in the December 31, 1999,
annual report on Form 10-K of First State Bancorporation.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Albuquerque, New Mexico
March 27, 2000

                                       22
- 1

- 

### S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

**C O U R T O F A P P E A L S**

FOR PUBLICATION

In re KEILLOR, Minors. June 28, 2018

No. 340395 Wayne Circuit Court Family Division

LC No. 16

- 523730

- NA

Before: R ONAYNE K RAUSE

, P .J., and M ARKEY and R IORDAN , JJ.

R ONAYNE K RAUSE

, P.J

. (concurring)

.

I respectfully concur in affirming the trial court. I am unpersuaded that the evidence in this record adequately establishes that sexual abuse of either child by a nonparent adult actually occurred. However, any acts the nonparent adult did or did not perpetrate against the children is

irrelevant. If only one statutory ground for termination is properly established, a parent’s parental rights must be terminated unl ess the trial court finds that doing so is contrary to the best

interests of the children. In re Powers Minors

, 244 Mich App 111, 118; 624 NW2d 472 (2000) ; In re BZ , 264 Mich App 286, 301; 690 NW2d 505 (2004). On this record, the trial court must be

affirmed.

The record conclusively establishes that respondent mother physically abused the children; she even admitted to beating them with an extension cord and was convicted of third

degree child abuse. The trial co urt could have left us with more specific factual findings to review, but it is clear that it chose to believe the testimony given by one of the children, which is the prerogative of the trial court, not this Court. McGonegal v McGonegal , 46 Mich 66, 67; 8 NW 724 (1 881). Considering all the evidenc e, and specifically: (1) R espondent mother’s bizarre testimony that she would do anything to bring the children home but would have agreed with the

children’s wishes never to see her again, had the one child who stated she was sexually abused

b y the non

- parent adult agreed to withdraw her allegation of sexual abuse ; (2) Respondent’s apparent lack of concern for the serious trauma the children suffered; (3) The trial court’s readily discernable finding tha t the children would suffer additional h arm if returned to respondent, based in part on respondent’s physical abuse of the child

, it is clear that the trial court’s decision is amply supported. Additi onally , respondent mother’s clear disre gard for the children’s allegations further reflects an equal disregard for their well

- being. I find that MCL 712A.19b(3)(j) has been more than adequately established by clear and convincing evidence.

Because I find one statutory ground for termination overwhelmingly established, I would

not address the i ss ue of the alleged sexual abuse because doing so is unnecessary. And as can be- 2

- seen from the lead opinion and the dissenting opinion, it is something about which there can be a serious debate. Not so with the physical abuse: It unequivocally occurred. O nly the severity of the physical abuse is at all in question and again, I defer to the trial court’s findings regarding credibility of the witnesses. Id

.

Other than the sexual abuse allegation itself, I agree with the lead opinion’s assessment of

the b est interests of the children. Consequently, I concur in affirming.

/s/ Amy Ronayne Krause
#### Geraldine Pagels, Appellant, v Robert Pagels, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: The parties stipulated to distribution of most of their marital property. All but one item of the property in the stipulation was divided equally; that item was divided 55%-45%. The court’s limited role with respect to equitable distribution was to value the remaining property and to distribute it equally. Under those circumstances, the court was not required to apply the factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) (d).

With respect to maintenance, plaintiff wife argues that the court erred in failing to consider the factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (a) and that the amount awarded, $200 per week until her remarriage or cohabitation with an unrelated adult male, the death of either party, or defendant’s retirement, is inadequate. Although the court erred in failing to set forth the factors it considered, we find the amount proper in light of the fact that plaintiffs actual income approximates her reasonable expenses, that there are no dependent children, and that she is in good health and plans to seek employment in the future (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a] [1], [2], [3], [6]). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Ostrowski, J.—divorce.) Present —Callahan, J. P., Denman, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
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 Quarterly Report of iVoice Technology, Inc. (the
"COMPANY"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007, as filed with
the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "REPORT"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, I, Jerome
Mahoney, hereby certify, pursuant to and solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.



Date: August 14, 2007                  By: /s/ Jerome Mahoney
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Jerome Mahoney
                                           President, Chief Executive Officer
                                           and Chief Financial Officer
#### Robert QUIEL, Employee/Respondent, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Employer/Appellant.

No. 68954.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

April 30, 1996.

Robert L. Lyng, Asst. City Atty., St. Louis, for appellant.

James W. McCartney, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before SMITH, P. J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and RHODES RUSSELL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, City of St. Louis, appeals the Final Award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission awarding compensation to respondent, Robert Quiel (“employee”), after employee suffered a heart attack arising out of and in the course of his employment as a firefighter. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find no error of law appears. As we further find no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written *121opinion, we affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision is provided solely for the use of the parties involved.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ANDRE ZOL D AN
, Appellant,

v.

THE ENTRADA CONDOMINIUM, INC.
,

Appellee

.

No. 4D 12

- 3179

[ June 24, 2015 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Mily Rodriguez Powell and William W. Haury, Jr.

, Judge s ; L.T. Case No. CACE 09

- 46887 (13)

.

Kenzie N. Sadlak of Kenzie N. Sadlak, P.A., Miami, for appellant.

William M. Douberley of Douberley, McGuinness & Cicero, Sunrise, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Aff irmed

. See Central Mort g

. Co. v. Callahan , 155 So. 3d 373 , 375

- 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) ; Ross v. Wells Fargo Bank , 114 So. 3d 256 , 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)

.

S TEVENSON

, G ROSS and C IKLIN
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 5, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17371-17372]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8328]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-30, 551 and TA-W-30, 552]


Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for 
Reconsideration

    In the matter of Mac Tools, Inc., Washington Court House, Ohio; 
and Mac Tools, Inc., Sabina, Ohio.

    By an application dated February 28, 1995, the petitioners with 
Congressional support requested administrative reconsideration of the 
subject petition for trade adjustment assistance, TAA. The denial 
notice was issued on February 9, 1995 and published in the Federal 
Register on March 1, 1995 (60 FR 11120). [[Page 17372]] 
    Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted under 
the following circumstances:
    (1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered 
that the determination complained of was erroneous;
    (2) if it appears that the determination complained of was based on 
a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or
    (3) if in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a 
misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of 
the decision.
    Investigation findings show that the workers produce mechanics' 
hand tools.
    The Department's denial was based on the fact that the 
`'contributed importantly'' test of the Group Eligibility Requirements 
of the Trade Act was not met. Both plants will close in April 1995 
because of a corporate decision to consolidate operations at other 
domestic corporate facilities. A domestic transfer of production would 
not form a basis for a worker group certification. Further, the 
findings show increased sales and production of mechanics' hand tools 
at the subject plants in the first nine months of 1994 compared to the 
same period in 1993.
    Other findings show that neither the subject plants nor its parent, 
Stanley Works in Connecticut, imported hand tools from China in the 
relevant period.

Conclusion

    After review of the application and investigative findings, I 
conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law 
or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department 
of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied.

    Signed at Washington, D.C., this 27th day of March, 1995.
Victor J. Trunzo,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-8328 Filed 4-4-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Larry D. FOSTER, Appellant.

No. WD 41993.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 26, 1991.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 2, 1991.

Application to Transfer Denied May 3, 1991.

Robert G. Duncan, Kansas City, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Barbara J. Wood, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before BERREY, P.J., and FENNER and ULRICH, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from a conviction by a jury of stealing and subsequent denial of Rule 29.-15 motion for postconviction relief after an evidentiary hearing.

Direct appeal from conviction is dismissed and denial of Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief is affirmed. Rules 84.16(b) and 30.25(b).
EXHIBIT 10.41



|                         |  |                                                |  |     
|------------------------ |  | ---------------------------------------------- |  | ----
|U.S. Department of Labor |  | Office of the Solicitor Washington, D C.
20210 |  | LOGO

October 10, 2007

Via Facsimile (949) 725-4100 and U.S. Mail

Robert J. Kane

John F. Canon

Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth

660 Newport Center Drive

Suite 1600

Newport Beach, CA 92660-6422



| | Re: | U.S. Department of Labor v. Entrade, Inc.,
| | --- | ------------------------------------------

OALJ
Case No. 2007-RIS-00126; EBSA Case No 06-4107D

Dear Gentlemen:

We have reviewed your settlement proposal and justification, and agree to settle the matter referenced above. Complainant U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) accepts your $13,000 settlement
offer.

By mutual agreement, payment by Entrade, Inc., in the amount of $13,000 will settle all claims that EBSA asserted against the company in the
administrative matter referenced above. Enclosed for your review and signature is a stipulation and order for dismissal, which we will file with the administrative law court after EBSA receives your settlement payment.

Payment of the $13,000 settlement amount should be made payable to the U.S. Department of Labor and should include thereon this case reference number
06-4107D.

The payment should be remitted within ten days of the date of this letter to:

Regular U.S. Mail

U.S. Department of
Labor

ERISA Civil Penalty

P.O. Box 70942

Charlotte, NC 28272-0942

If you desire to send payment by overnight service, please remit to the following address:

For overnight courier (i.e. FEDEX)
the new address is:

U.S. Department of Labor

QLP Wholesale Lockbox  NC0810

Lockbox # 70942

1525 West WT Harris Blvd

Charlotte, NC 28262