alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
$[ ] [ ]

INPUT

.05

80
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 Management Center of America, Inc. submits this exclusion request on behalf of our business

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

PLUNGER,T201/X001/381 is a used to actuate a power window switch, and is used only automotive

purposes, 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

PLUNGER,T201/X001/381 in question based solely on the product description. The following are draft

CBP exclusion instructions:

"PLUNGER,T201/X001/381 for POWER WINDOW SWITCH; rectangular plastic plunger with all four

corners notched the entire length used to control tactile feeling. Made of plastic resin - DUPONT

DELRIN 500P- POM NAL; dimensions 3.95mm x 5.52mm x13.0mm."

This information will be contained on the invoice from the supplier.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Michael R. BABCOCK, Appellant.

No. 62619.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

June 22, 1993.

Rehearing Denied July 14, 1993.

Michael R. Babcock, pro se.

William 0. Green, Asst. Pros. Atty., St. Louis County, Clayton, for respondent.

Before AHRENS, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his conviction for speeding. We find no error of law and affirm Defendant’s conviction.

We further find no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion in this case and affirm by summary order. Rule 30.25(b). We have provided a memorandum for use by the parties only.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7745
ANTHONY ATKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR QUINONES, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-95-1161-R) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 25, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Atkins, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Atkins v. Quinones , No. CA-95-1161-R (W.D. Va. Oct. 27, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
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-2018-0025-7824

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
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

July 21, 2005

Before

Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

Nos. 03-3051 & 03-3064

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JOVAN ALEXANDER and

SHANNON HUGHES,

Defendants-Appellants.

Appeals from the United States

District Court for the Western District

of Wisconsin

No. 03 CR 06

John C. Shabaz, 

Judge.

O R D E R

After the Supreme Court instructed that the sentencing guidelines are to be

applied only in advisory fashion, United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), we

ordered a limited remand to determine whether the district court would have

sentenced these appellants differently had it known that it was not bound by the

guidelines. See United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471, 481 (7th Cir. 2005). The

district judge has replied that in both cases he would have imposed identical

sentences even under advisory guidelines. We invited the parties to file arguments

concerning the reasonableness of the sentences. Having reviewed these responses,

we now affirm both sentences.

We recently held that a sentence within the applicable guideline range is

presumptively reasonable. United States v. Mykytiuk, No. 04-1196, 2005 WL

1592956, at *1 (7th Cir. July 7, 2005). An appellant can rebut the presumption by

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
Nos. 03-3051 & 03-3064 Page 2

demonstrating that his sentence is unreasonable when measured against the

factors set forth in § 3553(a). Id. at *2. Here, each appellant received a sentence

within the guideline range. Alexander received a sentence of 300 months—the

middle of the range of 262 to 327 months. And Hughes’s 327-month sentence is in

the middle of the calculated range of 292 to 365 months, or, as the parties

characterize it, at the top end of the range that would result from a one-level

“departure” for substantial assistance. 

Each appellant argues that his sentence was unreasonable and asks us to

remand for resentencing, and the government in both cases urges us to affirm. We

conclude that neither appellant has presented an argument sufficient to rebut the

presumption of reasonableness. The district court gave due weight to the § 3553(a)

factors and found that in each case, the sentence imposed was appropriate to hold

the defendant accountable for the severity of his crime and to protect the

community from a substantial risk of recidivism. Accordingly, as to both

appellants, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
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 28,
2008, 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 6, 2008



/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.
Exhibit 10.15


 


Marten Transport, Ltd.


2010 Non-Employee Director Compensation Summary


 


The Board of Directors of Marten Transport,
Ltd. approved the following fee schedule for non-employee directors effective May 4,
2010:


 


	
  Annual Board retainer

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  22,500

  	
   

  
	
  Lead Director

  	
   

  	
  5,000

  	
   

  
	
  Audit Committee chair

  	
   

  	
  15,000

  	
   

  
	
  Compensation Committee chair

  	
   

  	
  7,500

  	
   

  
	
  Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee chair

  	
   

  	
  2,500

  	
   

  



 


The company generally pays non-employee
directors a fee of $1,000 for each Board meeting attended, $750 for each
committee meeting attended, and reimburses them for out-of-pocket expenses of
attending meetings.


 


Pursuant to the non-employee director option
program adopted on March 1, 2006, which is similar to the program that was
suspended in 2004, each non-employee director will also receive an automatic
grant of an option to purchase 2,500 shares of common stock annually upon his
re-election to the Board by the stockholders. 
These options were issued at a per share exercise price equal to the
fair market value of one share of common stock on May 4, 2010, and expire
ten years from the grant date.


 


1
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-2018-0025-7819

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
**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





**Exhibit
      32.1**





Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63
      of
      Title 18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer of Finlay Fine
      Jewelry Corporation (the “Company”) does hereby certify with respect to the
      Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended February 2,
      2008
      (the “Report”) 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.




Date:
      April 17, 2008


/s/
                  Arthur E. ReinerArthur
                  E. ReinerChairman
                  and Chief Executive
                Officer




The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United
      States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
      disclosure document.
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

JULIA DIPIAZZA

, *

* No. 20

- 328 V

Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran

*

v. * Filed: December 20, 2021

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Stipulation; influenza (“flu”) vaccine;

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * SIRVA; shoulder injury.

*

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Michael G. McLaren

, Black McLaren, et al.

, PC, Memphis

, TN, for Petitioner;

Althea W. Davis , United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION 1

On December 14 , 20 21 , the parties filed a joint stipulation concerning the

petitio n for compensation filed by Julia Dipiazza on March 2 4 , 20 20 . Petitioner

alleged that the influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on November 16, 2018

, which is contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”), 42 C.F.R. §100.3(a),

caused her to suffer from a left shoulder injury related to vaccination

administration (“SIRVA”). Petitioner further alleges that she suffered the residual

effects of thi s injury for more than six months. Petitioner represents that there has

been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages on her behalf as a

result of her condition.

Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner to suffer from

SI RVA or any other injury.

1 T he E

- Government Act

, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and

Promotion of Electronic Government Services) , requires that the Court post this decision on its

website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing

redaction of medical information or other information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 12(d)(4).

Any redactions ordered by the special master will appear in the document posted on the website.2

Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation, attached hereto. The

undersigned finds said stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the

Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

Damages awarded in that stipulation include:

A lump sum payment of $ 18

, 5 00.00 in the form of a check payable to

petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that

would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(a).

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC, Appendix B,

the clerk is directed to enter judgment according to this decision and the attached

stipulation. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED

.

s /Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties can expedite entry of judgment by each

party filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review by a United States Court of Fed eral

Claims judge.
#### In the Interest of J.D., JR., Plaintiff. JUVENILE OFFICER, Respondent, v. J.D., SR., Natural Father, Appellant.

No. WD 50397.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Dec. 12, 1995.

Kyla Grove, Guardian ad Litem.

Robert Schieber, Kansas City, for appellant.

Lori L. Stipp, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before BRECKENRIDGE, P.J. and ULRICH and LAURA DENVIR STITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

J.D. Sr., appeals the order of the trial court terminating his parental rights to J.D. Jr. J.D. Sr. claims that the juvenile officer failed to prove by clear, cogent, and convine-*326mg evidence that he left J.D. Jr. for a period of six months or longer without provision for parental support and without making arrangements to visit or communicate with the child though able to do so. No precedential purpose in publishing a written opinion existing, the order terminating J.D. Sr.’s parental rights to J.D. Jr. is affirmed by summary order.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Universal Capital Management, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended October 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael D. Queen, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to 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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/ Michael D. Queen

Michael D. Queen,

President

December 18, 2008
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| 1.     | Such                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007,                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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for                the                period ended March 31, 2007, fairly presents, in all material respects,                the financial condition and results of operations of Universal Fog                Inc. |

| By:    | */s/*   *Tom                Bontems*Tom                BontemsChief Executive                OfficerChief Financial                Officer and Principal Accounting Officer |
|-----------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                  |                                                                                                                                                                                                 |

| Dated: | May                   , 2007 |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|
#### Vincent Shiano, Plaintiff, v Bernard Struble, Defendant.

Motion for leave to appeal denied. Memorandum: There is no authority for granting leave to appeal to the Appellate Division from a determination of an appellate court. *(See,*CPLR 5703 [b]; *Gastel v Bridges,*110 AD2d 146.) Either the appeal lies as of right or not at all. Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Boomer and Balio, JJ.
[Cite as State v. Wilson , 2015-Ohio-4534.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

CLERMONT COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2015-04-038

: D E C I S I O N - vs - 11/2/2015 : JOHN C. WILSON, : Defendant-Appellant. :

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. 2014CR00721

Vincent D. Faris, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, Nicholas A. Horton, 76 South Riverside Drive, 2nd Floor, Batavia, Ohio 45103, for plaintiff-appellee John D. Hill, Jr. and Louis Rubenstein, 125 East Court Street, Suite 1000, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, for defendant-appellant

Per Curiam. {¶ 1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal, the transcript of the docket and journal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas, and upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel. {¶ 2} Counsel for def endant-appellant, John C. Wilson, has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates thatClermont CA2015-04-038

- 2 - a careful review of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; (2) lists one potential error "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders , at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently to determine whether the proc eedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of appellant's constituti onal rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant. {¶ 3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to appellant's rights in the proceedings in the tr ial court. The motion of counsel for appellant requesting to wit hdraw as counsel is grant ed, and this a ppeal is dismissed for the reason that it is wholly frivolous.

S. POWELL, P.J., RINGLAND and HENDRICKSON, JJ., concur.