alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18414-18415]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8863]



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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Dkt. C-3564]


Wright Medical Technology, Inc., et al.; Prohibited Trade 
Practices, and Affirmative Corrective Actions

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Consent Order.

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

SUMMARY: In settlement of alleged violations of federal law prohibiting 
unfair acts and practices and unfair methods of competition, this 
consent order requires, among other things, a Tennessee-based research 
and development corporation to transfer to the Mayo Foundation, the 
licensor of the implant technology to Orthomet, Inc., a complete copy 
of all assets relating to Orthomet's business of researching and 
developing orthopaedic implants for use in human hands, and also 
requires Wright Medical Technology to obtain Commission approval before 
acquiring any interest in any firm that has received, or has applied 
for, Food and Drug Administration approval to market orthopaedic hand 
implants in the United States.

DATES: Complaint and Order issued March 23, 1995.\1\

    \1\Copies of the Complaint and the Decision and Order are 
available from the Commission's Public Reference Branch, H-130, 6th 
Street & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. 20580.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard B. Dagen, FTC/S-2627, 
Washington, DC. 20580. (202) 326-2628.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On Wednesday, January 4, 1995, there was 
published in the Federal Register, 60 FR 460, a proposed consent 
agreement with analysis In the Matter of Wright Medical Technology, 
Inc., et al, for the purpose [[Page 18415]] of soliciting public 
comment. Interested parties were given sixty (60) days in which to 
submit comments, suggestions or objections regarding the proposed form 
of the order.
    No comments having been received, the Commission has ordered the 
issuance of the complaint in the form contemplated by the agreement, 
made its jurisdictional findings and entered an order to cease and 
desist, as set forth in the proposed consent agreement, in disposition 
of this proceeding.

(Sec. 6, 38 Stat. 721; 15 U.S.C. 46. Interpret or apply sec. 5, 38 
Stat. 719, as amended; sec. 7, 38 Stat. 731, as amended; 15 U.S.C. 
45, 18)
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-8863 Filed 4-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 18594]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9019]



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


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

EERE-Denver Regional Support Office; IRP Education and Training 
Program

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Request for Applications, Integrated Resource 
Planning, Education and Training Program.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of Utility Technologies, Assistant Secretary for 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, through the Denver Regional 
Support Office, announces the Integrated Resource Planning Education 
and Training Program. The program will provide assistance for State 
public officials to participate in training and education opportunities 
to enhance integrated resource planning (IRP) and demand-side 
management (DSM) efforts. Two cycles of applications are invited, the 
first is April 1, 1995 and the second is July 1, 1995. Total funding 
available is $250,000.
    Eligible participants are Commissioners, Governing Officials, and 
staff of State public utility commissions and State energy offices. 
Funds may be used for training, including workshops and seminars, to 
obtain consultant services, to purchase computer software, guidebooks, 
tutorials, and to subscribe to databases and subscription services. 
Applications must be submitted to the Denver Regional Support Office. 
Applications will be evaluated according to the type of assistance 
requested, and the importance of the funding to IRP/DSM activities and 
the ability to measure the impact the assistance will have on advancing 
IRP/DSM in the organization. Awards will not exceed $5,000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To obtain a copy of the application 
procedures, contact Cathy Ghandehari , U.S. Department of Energy, 
Denver Support Office, 2801 Youngfield St., Suite 380, Golden, CO 
80401, Telephone 303-231-5750. Requests may be faxed to Ms. Ghandehari 
at 303-231-5757.


    Issued in Golden, Colorado on: March 23, 1995.
Beth H. Peterman,
Acting Chief, Procurement, GO.
[FR Doc. 95-9019 Filed 4-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 13, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41277 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ROBERTO VILLARREAL-GUERRERO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:06-CR-453-ALL

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM: * Roberto Villarreal-Guerrero (Villarreal) appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry following deportation. Although Villarreal concedes that his sentence is to be reviewed for reasonableness under this court’s precedent, he argues that a presumption of reasonableness standard is unconstitutional. This court is bound by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Rita v. United States , — U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 2456 (June 21, 2007) holding that we may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a district court sentence thatNo. 06-41277 -2- falls within a properly calculated Sentencing Guidelines range. Id. at 2463. Villarreal also argues that his sentence of 46 months of imprisonment, which was within the applicable advisory sentencing guideline range, is unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) because the district court failed to consider mitigating factors. It is clear from the record that the district court considered the mitigating evidence offered by Villarreal at sentencing. Villarreal has not shown that his sentence was unreasonable or that this court should not defer to the district court’s determinations at sentencing. See United States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 77 (Friday, April 21, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19955]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9787]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management


Information Collections Submitted to the Office of Management and 
Budget for Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposal for collection of information listed below has been 
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for approval under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). An 
expedited review has been requested in accordance with the Act, since 
allowing for the normal review period would adversely affect the public 
interest for the reasons given below. Approval has been requested by 
May 1, 1995. Comments and suggestions on the proposal should be made 
directly to the bureau clearance officer and to the Office of 
Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (1004-0011), 
Washington, D.C. 20503, telephone 202-395-7340.

Title: Jobs-in-the-Woods Employment Evaluation
OMB approval number:
Abstract: Four items of information will be requested in each Jobs-in-
the-Woods contract issued, for the contractor to respond to at the 
close of the contract:
    (1) Number of workers employed on the contract including managers, 
supervisors and support.
    (2) Number of days these workers worked on the contract (total 
based on an eight hour work day).
    (3) Total amount of wages and benefits paid to these workers.
    (4) Number of workers, if any, considered to be displaced timber 
workers.

    The information collected will be used by Federal land management 
agencies, Department-level officials in the Departments of Agriculture 
and Interior, White House officials, and Congress to gauge the 
effectiveness in achieving the intent of Federal appropriations for the 
Jobs-in-the-Woods program. The consequence of not having the 
information is that the outcome of the Jobs-in-the-Woods program will 
remain unknown and speculative. Adjustments to the program cannot be 
knowledgeably made in the absence of this information.

Reason for expedited review: To be able to include the contract clause 
into all Jobs-in-the-Woods contracts beginning in Fiscal Year 1995.
Bureau form number: Not applicable
Frequency: Once
Description of respondents: Businesses awarded Jobs-in-the-Woods 
contracts under the President's Northwest Economic Adjustment 
Initiative.
Estimated completion time: One half hour
Annual responses: 400
Annual burden hours: 200
Bureau clearance officer: Wendy Spencer, 303-236-6642
Charles E. Wassinger,
Associate State Director, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon/Washington.
[FR Doc. 95-9787 Filed 4-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-33-M
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of the 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 of WMG Acquisition Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael D. Fleisher, Chief Financial Officer of WMG Acquisition Corp., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: May 8, 2007



/s/    MICHAEL D.
FLEISHERMichael D. FleisherChief Financial Officer
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-2018-0025-7157

United Scope LLC: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_05.09.19.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
**EXHIBIT 32.02**

** **

**Section 1350 Certification**

** **

**In connection with this quarterlyreport of ML Winton FuturesAccess LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (this “Report”), I, Barbra E. Kocsis, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:**

** **

1.This Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The information contained in this Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 

Date: August 14, 2009

 
| By                                            | /s/  BARBRA E. KOCSIS |   |
|-----------------------------------------------|-----------------------|--------|
| Barbra  E. Kocsis                             |                  |
| Chief  Financial Officer                      |                  |
| (Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer) |                  |

 

1

----
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-2018-0025-4109

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
Gurman NOV

ENTRY REGARDING MOTION

Count 1, Municipal DRB Notice of Violation OTR (66-6-18 Vtec)

Title: Motion to Vacate (Motion 2)

Filer: Glenn Gurman

Attorney: Nathan H. Stearns

Filed Date: October 15, 2018

No response filed

The motion is GRANTED.

This matter is an appeal of a May 30, 2018 Norwich Development Review Board (DRB) 

decision finding zoning violations at Glenn Gurman’s property at 186 Kendall Station Road in 

Norwich, Vermont (the May 30 Decision). Mr. Gurman asks the Court to vacate the May 30 

Decision as the DRB was without jurisdiction to render the such a decision.1 No other party has 

filed a response to the request to vacate.

24 V.S.A. §§ 4451 and 4452 empower municipalities to remedy violations of municipal 

regulations. Section 4451 provides for daily fines for violations, however, a landowner is entitled 

to written notice of the alleged violation and seven days to cure the violation. In this matter, no 

action can be brought because no written notice of an alleged violation was provided to Mr. 

Gurman. 

Section 4452 creates the right of a municipality to institute an action in this Court to 

correct or prevent a violation. Section 4452 expressly states that it is the Administrative Officer 

who is empowered to bring the action. Mr. Gurman offers in his motion to vacate that the 

Norwich Zoning Regulations only authorize the Zoning Administrator and the Town Manager to 

issue notices of violation. Only if a zoning administrator, or duly authorized Administrative 

Officer, issues an enforcement decision pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4452 do interested parties have 

a right to appeal that decision to the DRB, and subsequently this Court, for review. See 24 V.S.A. 

§ 4465; 24 V.S.A. § 4471. In this matter, the Zoning Administrator never issued a notice of 

violation. Thus, § 4452 did not trigger any authority of the DRB to undertake any review.

 

1 We consider this a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to V.R.C.P. Rule 

12(b)(1). 

STATE OF VERMONT

SUPERIOR COURT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION

Docket No. 66-6-18 Vtec
We therefore VACATE the DRB’s May 30, 2018 Decision and GRANT Mr. Gurman’s motion 

to dismiss. Our decision does not limit the Zoning Administrator’s authority to act pursuant to 

24 V.S.A. §§ 4451 and 4452. This completes this matter.

So ordered.

Electronically signed on October 31, 2018 at 01:42 PM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 7(d).

_________________________________________

Thomas G. Walsh, Judge

Superior Court, Environmental Division

Notifications:

Nathan H. Stearns (ERN 3585), Attorney for Appellant Glenn Gurman

Interested Person Town of Norwich

For Informational Purposes Only Rod Francis

Interested Person John Eller

Interested Person Roger Blake

jteske
#### Gregory DAVIS, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 19853.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two.

March 16, 1995.

Rosemary E. Percival, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Becky Owenson Kilpatrick, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

PARRISH, Judge.

Gregory Davis (movant) appeals a judgment of the Circuit Court of New Madrid County denying a Rule 24.035 motion. The motion court denied relief for the reason that the motion was not filed within the time prescribed by Rule 24.035(b). Movant presents two points on appeal. Both contend that the mandatory time prescribed for filing motions for post-conviction relief violates the United States and Missouri constitutions.

Movant was convicted, based on a plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree,' § 569.020, RSMo 1986. He was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 10 years. He was delivered to the custody of the department of corrections September 16,1993. He filed a *pro se*motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 24.035 on June 1, 1994.

The motion court found that movant’s motion was filed more than 90 days after mov-ant was delivered to the custody of the department of corrections, contrary to requirements of Rule 24.035(b), and denied relief. The findings are not clearly erroneous. The time constraints on motions for post-conviction relief imposed by Rules 24.035 and 29.15 are valid. No error of law appears. *Day v. State,*770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc), *cert. denied sub nom., Walker v. State,*493 U.S. 866, 110 S.Ct. 186, 107 L.Ed.2d 141 (1989). Further opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed in compliance with Rule 84.16(b).

PREWITT and CROW, JJ., concur.
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-2018-0025-7482

General Motors:

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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
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-2018-0025-4183

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
#### In re the Marriage of Patricia H. THOROUGHMAN, Petitioner/Appellant/Cross-Respondent, v. Shelby H. THOROUGHMAN, Respondent/Respondent Cross-Appellant.

Nos. 60611, 60659.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Jan. 5, 1993.

James P. Leonard, St. Louis, for appellant.

Robert R. Sandcork, Clayton, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

In this dissolution case, wife appeals the trial court’s award of maintenance to husband and its division of marital property. Husband cross-appeals, alleging the trial *411court erred in awarding the amount of maintenance awarded.

An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).