alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

UNIONTOWN NEWSPAPERS, INC., 

D/B/A THE HERALD STANDARD; AND 

CHRISTINE HAINES,

Respondents

v.

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 561 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

UNIONTOWN NEWSPAPERS, INC., 

D/B/A THE HERALD STANDARD; AND 

CHRISTINE HAINES,

Respondents

v.

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 779 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 24th day of September, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to the 
[779 MAL 2018] - 2

remaining issue. The first issue, as stated by petitioner, and the second issue as 

rephrased for clarity, are:

(1) Where RTKL Section 65 P.S. § 67.1304 and § 67.1305 premise the award 

of sanctions and attorney fees on a finding of bad faith and willful and 

wanton behavior, can a court impose those penalties based on a finding 

that the RTK responder failed to personally and independently assess the 

universe of documents sought, instead relying on the statement of the 

Bureau functionaries that all otherwise responsive records are part of a 

noncriminal investigation, when any duty to independently and personally 

assess is not clearly delineated in either the statute or the case law?

(2) Did the Commonwealth Court properly construe the statutory language of 

65 P.S. § 67.1304 as authorizing an award of attorney fees when a court 

reverses a final determination of an agency rather than when a court 

reverses the final determination of the appeals officer?
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6679

Dynapac North America LLC:

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,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
19116 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 14, 1995 / Sunshine Act Meetings

(202) 452–3207, beginning at

approximately 5 p.m. two business days

before this meeting, for a recorded

announcement of bank and bank

holding company applications

scheduled for the meeting.

Dated: April 12, 1995.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 95–9355 Filed 4–12–95; 11:03 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P

UNIFORMED SERVICES UNIVERSITY OF THE

HEALTH SCIENCES

Meeting Notice

TIME AND DATE: 1:00 p.m., May 19, 1995.

PLACE: Uniformed Services University

of the Health Sciences, Room D3001,

4301 Jones Bridge Road, Bethesda, MD

20814–4799.

STATUS: Open—under ‘‘Government in

the Sunshine Act’’ (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)).

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1:00 p.m. Meeting—Board of Regents

(1) Approval of Minutes—January 23, 1995;

(2) Faculty Matters; (3) Departmental Reports;

(4) Financial Report; (5) Report—President,

USUHS; (6) Report—Dean, School of

Medicine; (7) Comments—Chairman, Board

of Regents.

New Business

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Bobby D. Anderson, Executive Secretary

of the Board of Regents, 301/295–3116.

Dated: April 12, 1995.

Patricia L. Toppings

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 95–9437 Filed 4–12–95; 3:32 pm]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bulldog Financial, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended May 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Scott McDowell, Chief Executive Officer 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; and

(2) The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 26th day of July, 2007.



| | SCOTT McDOWELL                                     
| | ---------------------------------------------------
| | Scott McDowell                                     
| | Chief Executive Officer and Chief 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-2018-0025-6621

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 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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
### MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 11

- 00030

- CV In the MATTER OF J.L.S. , A Child From the County Court , Bandera County, Texas Trial Court No. 10

- 0010 Honorable Richard A. Evans , Judge Presiding Opinion by: Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Delivered and Filed: September 2 1 , 2011
REVERSED AND REMANDED The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (“DFPS”) and Christopher McKelvy appeal the trial court’s orders imposing monitoring obligations on them and assessing court costs, fees, and restitution against them in a juvenile proceeding. J.L.S. is a juvenile under the permanent managing con servatorship of DFPS. Christopher McKelvy is employed by the Department and is J.L.S.’s substitute care caseworker. The State of Texas filed a petition to declare J.L.S. to have engaged in delinquent conduct by committing the offense of burglary of a habit ation. 1 The trial court adjudicated J.L.S. delinquent, conducted a disposition hearing, and placed J.L.S. on probation under the supervision of the Bandera County

1 J.L.S. was in foster care when the delinquent conduct occurred. At that time, McKelvy had been J.L.S.’s caseworker for several months.04

- 11

- 00030

- CV

- 2

- Juvenile Probation Department. The trial court’s disposition order also ordered McKelvy, as
J .L.S.’s “guardian,” to pay $2,187.50 in restitution, $20.00 in court costs, $15.00 per month probation supervisory fees, and $300.00 in attorney’s fees. In addition, the trial court signed an “Order Concerning Guardians of Juvenile,” which orders “Texas De partment of Child Protective Services, Christopher McKelvy, or his Designee” to ensure J.L.S.’s attendance at school, report violations of school rules and probation conditions, ensure compliance with curfews, and to perform other monitoring requirements. The trial court denied DFPS’s and McKelvy’s motion to modify and for a new trial, and they appealed. For the reasons stated in this court’s opinion in In the Matter of R.L. , No. 04

- 11

- 00029

- CV, 2011 WL 4 089260 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Sept. 14, 2011, no pet . h.), we hold the relief the trial court granted against DFPS and McKelvy is barred by sovereign immunity, and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief. We therefore reverse the trial court’s orders and remand the cause to the trial court w ith instructions to eliminate all provisions in its orders imposing obligations on DFPS or McKelvy.

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
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-2018-0025-7398

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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5730

A.W. Chesterton Company:

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
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

David Frank Morgan, * From the 118th District

 Court of Howard County,

 Trial Court No. 8094.

Vs. No. 11-12-00342-CR * February 7, 2013

State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 McCall, J., and Willson, J.)

 This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal should be 

dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the appeal 

is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Antonio PETERSON, Appellant. Antonio PETERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 66363, 68193.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

April 30, 1996.

Douglas R. Hoff, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and GRIMM, J J.

PER CURIAM.

A jury found defendant guilty of one count of first degree murder § 565.020.1, RSMo 1994, and armed criminal action § 571.015.1, RSMo 1994. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent terms of life without possibility of parole and life imprisonment.

On appeal defendant claims the trial court erred when it allowed the State to make improper comments during closing argument. Defendant also argues the motion court erred when it denied his Rule 29.15 motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. We disagree and affirm.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgments are affirmed pursuant to Rules 84.16(b) and 30.25(b).
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 21, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 14963]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6899]



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

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
[Docket No. AB-416 (Sub-No. 2X)]


San Bernardino Associated Governments--Abandonment Exemption--San 
Bernardino County, CA

AGENCY: Interstate Commerce Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Exemption.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission, under 49 U.S.C. 10505, exempts from the prior 
approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10903-10904 the abandonment by the 
San Bernardino Associated Governments of 1.94 miles of rail line on the 
Redlands Subdivision, between milepost 11.40 and milepost 13.34, in San 
Bernardino County, CA, subject to standard labor protective conditions.

DATES: Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of 
financial assistance has been received, this exemption will be 
effective on April 10, 1995. Formal expressions of intent to file an 
offer of financial assistance under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2)\1\ and 
petitions to stay must be filed by March 31, 1995. Requests for a 
public use condition and petitions to reopen must be filed by April 10, 
1995.

    \1\See Exempt. of Rail Abandonment--Offers of Finan. Assist., 4 
I.C.C.2d 164 (1987).

ADDRESSES: Any comments must be filed with the Office of the Secretary, 
Case Control Branch, Interstate Commerce Commission, 1201 Constitution 
Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20423 and served on petitioner's 
representative: Charles A. Spitulnik, Hopkins & Sutter, 888 16th 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beryl Gordon, (202) 927-5610. [TDD for 
the hearing impaired: (202) 927-5721.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additional information is contained in the 
Commission's decision. To purchase a copy of the full decision, write 
to, call, or pick up in person from: Dynamic Concepts, Inc., Interstate 
Commerce Commission Building, 1201 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room 
2229, Washington, D.C. 20423. Telephone: (202) 289-4357/4359. 
[Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through TDD services 
at (202) 927-5721.]

    Decided: March 9, 1995.

    By the Commission, Chairman McDonald, Vice Chairman Morgan, and 
Commissioners Simmons and Owen.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-6899 Filed 3-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7035-01-P
Motion to Withdraw Granted; Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed 

March 26, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00889-CR

NOE GERARDO MORIN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 337th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1306502

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A jury found appellant guilty of murder. Appellant entered a plea of true to 

the enhancement paragraphs in the indictment, and the jury assessed punishment at 

life in prison. On September 26, 2013, the trial court sentenced appellant to 

confinement for life in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of 

Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
2

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes the 

appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.1The brief meets the requirements of 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a 

professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable 

grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1978).

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised 

of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford 

v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Counsel has complied with 

the Anders procedures set out in Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2014). A copy of the appellate record was provided to appellant, and 

appellant was advised of the deadline to file any pro se response to counsel’s brief. 

Appellant was granted two extensions of time to file a responsive brief. When the 

second extension was granted, the court noted that no further extensions would be 

granted absent exceptional circumstances. As of this date, more than sixty days 

have passed since the extended deadline and no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the 

appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in 

the record. We need not address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief 

or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for 

review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

 

1 Appellant’s previous appointed counsel also filed an Anders brief, but new counsel was 

appointed after the trial court determined that the previous counsel had not complied with the 

requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967).
3

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Donovan, and Wise. 

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
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-2018-0025-7016

MAHLE Behr USA, Inc:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
**Exhibit32.1**

**StationCasinos, Inc.**

**CertificationPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(18U.S.C. Section 1350)**

Pursuantto the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.Sections 1350(a) and (b)), the undersigned hereby certify as follows:

1.                                       FrankJ. Fertitta III is the Chief Executive Officer of the Company (the “Company”).

2.                                       Theundersigned certifies to the best of his knowledge:

(A)                              TheCompany’s Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2006 accompanying thisCertification, in the form filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”); and

(B)                                Theinformation in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Dated: May 4, 2007 |
|--------------------|
|               |
|               |   |
|               | /s/ Frank J. Fertitta III |   |
|               | Frank J. Fertitta III |
|               | Chairman of the Board and |
|               | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----