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

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-7416

Nissan 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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 55 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 55

 To amend title 18, United States Code, to enhance criminal penalties 
          for health related stalking, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2023

 Ms. Jackson Lee introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 18, United States Code, to enhance criminal penalties 
          for health related stalking, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Preventing Vigilante Stalking that 
Stops Women's Access to Healthcare and Abortion Rights Act of 2022''.

SEC. 2. OBTAINING OR INTERFERING WITH THE PERSONAL HEALTHCARE DECISIONS 
              OF A WOMAN.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 110A of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting after section 2261B the following:
``Sec. 2261C. Enhanced penalty for health related stalking
    ``If a person commits an offense under section 2261A with the 
intent to obtain healthcare information of an individual or to prevent 
the healthcare decisions of an individual, the person may be imprisoned 
for up to 3 years, in addition to any term of imprisonment imposed for 
that offense under section 2261A.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 110A of 
title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item 
relating to section 2261B the following:

``2261C. Enhanced penalty for health related stalking.''.
                                 <all>
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN A. GUIDICE,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

JAMES L. PRIEST; INDYNE, INC.,

named as Indyne/WROIC,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-56240

D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01856-MWFJEM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 13, 2015** 

Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

John A. Guidice appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his defamation action arising from events that occurred on Vandenberg Air Force

Base. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a

FILED

MAY 19 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
dismissal for failure to state a claim, Pride v. Correa, 719 F.3d 1130, 1133 (9th

Cir. 2013), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Guidice’s defamation claim because

Priest’s statement that Guidice shouted is not actionable. See Taus v. Loftus, 151

P.3d 1185, 1209 (Cal. 2007) (setting forth elements of a defamation claim and

explaining that an expression of opinion cannot form the basis of a defamation

action); Grillo v. Smith, 193 Cal. Rptr. 414, 417 (Ct. App. 1983) (“The words

‘angry,’ ‘shouted,’ [and] ‘stormed,’ . . . fall clearly on the opinion side of the line. 

They are subjective words . . . of the sort which have been found to be opinion as a

matter of law frequently in the past.”). 

AFFIRMED.

2 13-56240
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 10222 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. DAVID EARL KATES , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:97

- CR

- 42

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM: * David Earl Kates, federal prisoner # 30428

- 077, is an abusive litigant and has been sanctioned on several occasions. On February 24, 2015, Kates submitted a mo tion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2 ) seeking a redu ction in his sentence. In accordance with a prior sanction order, this pleading was stricken without a ruling from the district court

. We review such actions for an abuse of discretion. Gelabert v. Lynaugh , 894 F.2 d 746, 747

- 48 (5th Cir. 1990).

* 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 27, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-10222 Document: 00513172063 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/27/2015No. 15

- 10222

2 Kates has filed a brief arguing the merits of his request for a sentence reduction, but he has not addressed the district court’s enforcement of the sanction order. Accordingly, he has abandoned the threshold issue for appeal. See Brinkmann v. Dallas C nt y
. Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987) ; Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224

- 25 (5th Cir. 1993). As Kates’s appeal does not present a legal i ssue arguable on its merits, it is frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 2 19

- 20 (5th Ci r. 1983)

. T he appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5 TH C IR

. R . 42.2. Case: 15-10222 Document: 00513172063 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/27/2015
Exhibit 10.2

Amendment to Sublicense Agreement

THIS
AMENDMENT to the Sublicense Agreement between Revimmune, LLC (Revimmune) and Accentia Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (Accentia) is made and entered by and between Revimmune and Accentia as of this 18thday of April 2008 pursuant to Section 10.9 of the Sublicense Agreement.

WITNESSETH

WHEREAS,Revimmune and Accentia entered into a Sublicense Agreement on February 27, 2007
(the Sublicense Agreement); and

WHEREAS,the parties wish to amend the Sublicense Agreement to clarify that the Sublicense rights shall
terminate and revert to Revimmune in the event of certain occurrences, including events of insolvency and/or the pledge or placement of a lien against the Sublicensed Rights without Revimmunes written consent.

NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration in hand received including the promises and covenants set forth herein, parties agree as follows:



| | 1. | Section 8.1 of the Sublicense Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety as follows:
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8.1 Term. Unless earlier terminated under Section 8.2 hereof, this Agreement and the Sublicense granted hereby shall commence as of the
Effective Date and, unless sooner terminated as provided hereunder, shall have an initial term (the Initial Term) that shall terminate on the last to occur of: (i) Ten (10) years from the date hereof, (ii) the termination
of the JHU License, or (iii) the expiration of the last-to-expire of the patent claims included in the Sublicensed Rights. The Term shall be automatically extended by successive extension terms (the Extension Terms) of one
(1) year each unless either party gives written notice of its election not to extend the term at least ninety (90) days prior to the expiration of the Initial Term or of any Extension Term. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Sublicense
shall terminate upon the filing of a petition in bankruptcy by or against ACCENTIA or the filing of a petition for liquidation or receivership of ACCENTIA. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Sublicense shall terminate upon any pledge or granting of
any lien or security interest in the Sublicense or any interest under the Sublicense without the prior written consent of REVIMMUNE. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, ACCENTIA may terminate this Agreement at any time upon
no less than sixty (60) days prior written notice.



| | 2. | The rest and remainder of the Sublicense Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Parties has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized
officer as of the day and year first above written.



REVIMMUNE, LLCBy:

/s/ Francis E. ODonnell, Jr.Name:

Francis E. ODonnell, Jr., M.D.Title:

ManagerACCENTIA BIOPHARMACEUTICALS, INC.By:

/s/ James A. McNultyName:

James A. McNulty, CPATitle:

Secretary/Treasurer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Florez, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Altman, J.), rendered on May 8, 1987, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree and sentencing defendant to an indeterminate prison term of from five years to life, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” *(People v Felman,*141 AD2d 889, 890, *Iv denied*72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Carro, Milonas and Rosenberger, JJ.
NFO WORLDWIDE, INC.
                  INDEX TO FINANCIAL INFORMATION AND SCHEDULES




                                                                     PAGE
                                                                    NUMBER
                                                                    ------

Schedule II - Valuation and Qualifying Accounts....................... S-2


                                       S-1

<PAGE>

                                   SCHEDULE II

                        Valuation and Qualifying Accounts
                                 (In thousands)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Column A                           Column B                 Column C                 Column D            Column E
                                                              (a)                      (b)

                                   Balance at               Additions
                                   Beginning of          charged to costs                                Balance at
Description                          Period                and expenses             Deductions         End of Period
-----------                          ------                ------------             ----------         -------------
<S>                                  <C>                     <C>                    <C>                     <C>
Allowance for doubtful acounts:

January 1 -
December 31, 1997                    $     447               $     151              $    127             $     471

January 1 -
December 31, 1996                    $     247               $     243              $     43             $     447

January 1 -
December 31, 1995                    $     237               $      39              $     29             $     247

</TABLE>

Notes:

(a)      Column "C(2)" has been omitted as it did not contain any amounts.
(b)      Write off of uncollectible accounts.


                                       S-2
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Esquire Communications Ltd:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-
33629) on Form S-8 of Esquire Communications Ltd. of our report dated March 27,
1998, relating to the balance sheets of Esquire Communications Ltd. as of
December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related statements of operations,
stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year
period ended December 31, 1997, which report appears in the December 31, 1997,
annual report on Form 10-KSB of Esquire Communications Ltd.

                                             KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

San Diego, CA.
March 30, 1998
EXHIBIT 23


                          CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                              INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-62336) pertaining to the E.W. Blanch Co. Retirement Plan, the
Registration (Form S-8 No. 33-78300) pertaining to the Employee Stock Purchase
Plan of E.W. Blanch Holdings, Inc., the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
333-40441) pertaining to the 1993 Stock Incentive Plan, and the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-45261) pertaining to the Non-Employee Director's
Stock Plan, Executive Restricted Stock Incentive Plan, 1997 Stock Incentive Plan
and Retirement Plan, of our report dated January 15, 1998, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of E.W. Blanch Holdings, Inc. incorporated by
reference in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1997.



                                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP



Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 24, 1997
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Charley JOHNSON, Defendant/Appellant. Charley JOHNSON, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Nos. 59933, 63304.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Nov. 30, 1993.

*449S. Paige Canfield, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David B. Cosgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his convictions, by a jury, of robbery in the first degree, § 569.-020, RSMo 1986; armed criminal action, § 571.015, RSMo 1986; burglary in the first degree, § 569.160, RSMo 1986; and attempt to commit robbery in the second degree, § 571.011, RSMo 1986. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error on direct appeal are without merit. An opinion would have no prece-dential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.-25(b).

The judgment of the motion court denying defendant’s Rule 29.15 motion is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A [Amendment No. 1] of Accentia
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) for the three months ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q/A), I, Alan M. Pearce, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 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 Form 10-Q/A 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 Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: May 15, 2006



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Alan M. Pearce     
|Alan M. Pearce         
|Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q/A to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Accentia Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after
the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
**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

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 3, 2007 (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 19, 2007

 

|   |   |   |
|--------|--------|--------|
|        |   |   | /s/ Bruce E. Zurlnick |
|   |   |   | Bruce E. ZurlnickSenior Vice President, Treasurerand Chief Financial 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.

 

 

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 April 28, 2014

t0421

Order 

Clerk

April 28, 2014

148479

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148479

COA: 317398

Eaton CC: 12-020205-FH

ALLEN LEI ROSCOE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 15, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000898018
<NAME> MOUNTAIN BANK HOLDING COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,369
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          10,546
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     24,995
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         44,785
<ALLOWANCE>                                        618
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  87,735
<DEPOSITS>                                      77,593
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                408
<LONG-TERM>                                         43
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           907
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,784
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  87,735
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,441
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,432
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   296
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,169
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,495
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,499
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,670
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       78
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  23
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,291
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,165
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,165
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       772
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.9
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.04
<LOANS-NON>                                        447
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   555
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     (15)
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  618
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               618
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>