alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Mark PAYNE, Appellant.

No. 68536.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Aug. 27, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 1,1996.

David C. Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Barbara J. Wood, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from the judgment upon his conviction by a jury of one count of delivery of a controlled substance, § 195.211, RSMo 1994, for which he was sentenced to a term of eight years’ imprisonment. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. 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 30.25(b).
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5528 

AN ACT 

To require the Director of the Office of Management and 

Budget conduct a review to determine the impact of 

the lowest price technically acceptable source selection 

process on national security, 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, 
2 

•HR 5528 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Safe and Smart Fed3 eral Purchasing Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REVIEW TO DETERMINE THE IMPACT OF THE LOW5 EST PRICE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE 

6 SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS ON NATIONAL 

7 SECURITY. 

8 (a) REVIEW.—The Director shall review the procure9 ment management practices of Defense and Civilian agen10 cies to determine whether the provisions of section 

11 15.101–2 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation have cre12 ated any national security risk. 

13 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after the en14 actment of this Act, the Director shall submit a report 

15 on the results of the review under subsection (a) to— 

16 (1) the Committee on Oversight and Account17 ability of the House of Representatives; and 

18 (2) the Committee on Homeland Security and 

19 Governmental Affairs of the Senate. 

20 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

21 (1) DEFENSE AND CIVILIAN AGENCY.—The 

22 term ‘‘Defense and Civilian agency’’ has the mean23 ing given the term ‘‘agency’’ in section 133 of title 

24 41, United States Code. 
3 

•HR 5528 EH

1 (2) DIRECTOR.—The term ‘‘Director’’ means 

2 the Director of the Office of Management and Budg3 et. 

Passed the House of Representatives January 29, 

2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5528 

AN ACT 

To require the Director of the Office of Manageand for other purposes. able source selection process on national security, the impact of the lowest price technically accept- ment and Budget conduct a review to determine
#### Bobbie VANFLEET, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 63864.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Nov. 2, 1993.

Susan K. Eckles, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We find no clear error and affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b)(2).

We further find an extended opinion would have no precedential value. Rule 84.16(b). *416A memorandum has been provided to the parties for their use only.
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-2018-0025-4867

Scosche Industries, 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 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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 17, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-5940

Hirsch Glass Corp: 

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/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September.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
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 03, 2024. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, October 03, 2024 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A25I0043. GEORGIA KENWORTH, LLC d/b/a MHC KENWORTH - MACON v. ROCKY SMITH.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 24SCCV098018
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      20,999,596
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            11,000,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 46,274,195
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      15,235,174
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        15,291,473
<LOANS>                                    288,368,847
<ALLOWANCE>                                  3,279,457
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             401,044,324
<DEPOSITS>                                 345,590,697
<SHORT-TERM>                                10,105,190
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,597,599
<LONG-TERM>                                 15,036,463
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    27,673,362
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,013
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             401,044,324
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             28,428,332
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            3,336,960
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            31,765,292
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          10,757,772
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          12,272,638
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       19,492,654
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                1,536,597
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             17,426,292
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,004,715
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   3,330,368
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,330,368
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.21
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.40
<LOANS-NON>                                  3,123,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                   107,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                              3,873,000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             2,510,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  972,000
<RECOVERIES>                                   204,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            3,279,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         3,279,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32.2





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 Brooklyn Federal Bancorp, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ralph
Walther, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 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
14, 2008





/s/ Ralph
Walther


Ralph
Walther


Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7768

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TONY B. ALEXANDER,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 03-6234

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TONY B. ALEXANDER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,

District Judge. (CR-95-178)

Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 25, 2003
2

Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tony B. Alexander, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F. Shappert,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Tony B. Alexander appeals the district court’s order denying

his motion to modify his sentence. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Alexander’s motion

for modification of his sentence and affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court. See United States v. Alexander, No. CR-95-

178 (W.D.N.C., filed Jan. 17, 2003; entered Jan. 21, 2003). 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
** **

**Exhibit23.1**

 

 

**Consentof Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-70342, 33-63752, 333-11975,333-80925, 333-40540 and 333-88490) of our report dated February 18, 2005 withrespect to the consolidated financial statements of Station Casinos, Inc and byreference in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,2004.

 

/s/Ernst & Young LLP

 

 

Las Vegas, Nevada

March 11, 2005

 

----
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-7251

SYNTRON Material Handling: 

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

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

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

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

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

_5-30-2019.pdf.

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

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

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

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

the product exclusion notice. 

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

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

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

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 14

- 00587

- CV

CATHERINE HARRISON

v. BROOKDALE SENIOR LIV ING, INC.
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No 1 of Nueces County , Texas Trial Cause No. 2014

- CCV

- 60279

- 1

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, havin g considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. Each party shall bear their own costs relating to this appeal

. We further order this decision certified bel ow for observance. July 2, 2015
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5390 

AN ACT 

To direct the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a study 

on the feasibility of manufacturing in the United States 

products for critical infrastructure sectors, 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, 
2 

•HR 5390 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Critical Infrastructure 

3 Manufacturing Feasibility Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. STUDY ON CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE MANUFAC5 TURING IN THE UNITED STATES. 

6 (a) STUDY.—Not later than 1 year after the date of 

7 the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce 

8 shall conduct a study to— 

9 (1) identify, within each critical infrastructure 

10 sector, any product that is in high demand and is 

11 being imported due to a manufacturing, material, or 

12 supply chain constraint in the United States; 

13 (2) analyze the costs and benefits of manufac14 turing in the United States any product identified 

15 under paragraph (1), including any effects on— 

16 (A) jobs, employment rates, and labor con17 ditions in the United States; and 

18 (B) the cost of the product; 

19 (3) identify any product identified under para20 graph (1) that feasibly may be manufactured in the 

21 United States; and 

22 (4) analyze the feasibility of, and any impedi23 ments to, manufacturing any product identified 

24 under paragraph (3) in— 

25 (A) a rural area; 

26 (B) an industrial park; or 
3 

•HR 5390 EH

1 (C) an industrial park in a rural area. 

2 (b) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 18 

3 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 

4 Secretary shall— 

5 (1) submit to Congress a report containing the 

6 results of the study required by subsection (a), with 

7 recommendations relating to manufacturing in the 

8 United States products identified under subsection 

9 (a)(3); and 

10 (2) make the report available to the public on 

11 the website of the Department of Commerce. 

12 (c) LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY.—This section may 

13 not be construed to provide the Secretary of Commerce 

14 with authority to compel a person to provide information 

15 described in this section. 

16 (d) DEFINITION OF CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

17 SECTOR.—In this section, the term ‘‘critical infrastructure 

18 sector’’ means each of the 16 designated critical infra19 structure sectors identified in Presidential Policy Directive 
4 

•HR 5390 EH

1 21 of February 12, 2013 (Critical Infrastructure Security 

2 and Resilience). 

Passed the House of Representatives May 14, 2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5390 

AN ACT 

To direct the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a 

sectors, and for other purposes. United States products for critical infrastructure study on the feasibility of manufacturing in the
Exhibit
99.5




CERTIFICATION
 Pursuant
to 18 United States Code § 1350
  The
undersigned hereby certifies that to his knowledge the Annual Report on Form
40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, of Dundee Corporation (the
“Company”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in such report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.
    By:            /s/Ned
Goodman
 Ned
Goodman
 President and Chief Executive
Officer
 Date:       April
8, 2009
  
  
  
  CERTIFICATION
 Pursuant
to 18 United States Code § 1350
 
 The
undersigned hereby certifies that to her knowledge the Annual Report on Form
40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, of Dundee Corporation (the
“Company”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in such report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.
    By:           /s/Joanne
Ferstman
 Joanne
Ferstman
 Executive
Vice President,
 Chief
Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary
 Date:       April
8, 2009
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Natural Therapy Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Lively, Paul, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>GEICO Ins. Co., Appellant. </font></b></div><br><br><p>Law Office of Goldstein &amp; Flecker (Lawrence J. Chanice of counsel), for appellant.The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Devin P. Cohen, J.), entered December 15, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from, and as limited by the brief, denied the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon the unpaid portion of plaintiff's claims.</p><p>ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon the unpaid portion of plaintiff's claims is granted.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. By order entered December 15, 2016, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, the Civil Court denied the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking dismissal of so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon the unpaid portion of plaintiff's claims.</p><p>For the reasons stated in <i>Natural Therapy Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Boodoo, Anselm Kevin v GEICO Ins. Co.</i> (__ Misc 3d ___, 2019 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2017-635 K C], decided herewith), the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon the unpaid portion of plaintiff's claims is granted.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: August 02, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 17, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-6967

WorldWide Electric Corporation: 

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

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

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

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

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September.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