alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 104 (Wednesday, June 2, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29591-29592]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11515]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Exploratory Centers 
(P20) for Benign Urology.
    Date: July 20, 2021.
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 
Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Lan Tian, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 
National

[[Page 29592]]

Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, 202-821-7210 
(mobile), email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5e2a373f30321e30373670393128"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="86f2efe7e8eac6e8efeea8e1e9f0">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 26, 2021.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-11515 Filed 6-1-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-7558

Nima Labs, Inc: 

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.

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
|   | 1)     | The                  Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company’s financial position and results of                  operations. |

|                                      |                                                                       |                                                  |
|-------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                                 |                                                                  |                                             |
| Date:               February 7, 2006 |                                                                  |  /s/              Corinne              Fallacaro |
|                                      |                                                                            |
|                                      | Corinne                FallacaroPrincipal                Executive Officer |

----
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-2018-0025-7402

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

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-7809

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
#### Ex parte Ervin Eugene MATHIS.

No. 72097.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 31, 1995.

James L. Bruner, San Antonio, for appellant.

Steven Hilbig, Dist. Atty., and Angela Moore, Asst. Dist. Atty., San Antonio, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*OPINION*

PER CURIAM.

This is a post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07, V.A.C.C.P. Applicant was convicted of unauthorized use of a vehicle and was sentenced to thirteen years of confinement. Applicant was paroled on this sentence in 1991 and returned to DeWitt County on a detainer. Applicant’s probation was revoked in the DeWitt County case, and he was returned to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. Applicant claims he discharged his sentence in that DeWitt County case, but remained in custody under this Bexar County sentence. Applicant alleges there was no parole revocation hearing held for the Bexar County case, nor did he waive a hearing. Minutes of the Board of Pardons and Paroles introduced into evidence at the habeas corpus hearing show that in October 1992 the Board voided the parole certificate.

*204The trial court held an evidentiary hearing and found that Applicant’s contentions are correct. The court concluded that Applicant’s due process rights were not observed. We agree. See *Ex parte Snow,*899 S.W.2d 201 (Tex.Cr.App.1995).

Relief is granted. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Pardons and Paroles Division, shall reinstate Applicant’s parole for the Bexar County conviction in cause number 87CR4469.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional and Pardons and Paroles Divisions.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-11165

Conference Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Joshua David Lane, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:18-CR-6-1

Before Graves, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Joshua David Lane has moved 

for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Lane has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 29, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-11165 Document: 00515582392 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/29/2020
No. 19-11165

2

to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Lane’s claims of ineffective assistance 

of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to 

collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the 

record reflected therein, as well as Lane’s response. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, Lane’s 

motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED, and the APPEAL IS 

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

Case: 19-11165 Document: 00515582392 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/29/2020
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-2018-0025-5009

OMRON Management Center of 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           2,764
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 1,430
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     11,066
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         56,102
<ALLOWANCE>                                        563
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  74,847
<DEPOSITS>                                      67,874
<SHORT-TERM>                                        45
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                609
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,334
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,985
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  74,847
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  5,063
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  729
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   231
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,023
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,923
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,927
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,096
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      212
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,256
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,206
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,206
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       763
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.65
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.75
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         4
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   434
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      122
<RECOVERIES>                                        39
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  563
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               419
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            144
        

</TABLE>
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-2018-0025-7013

Magna Electronics Technology, 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
Exhibit
32.2





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





I,
Michael W. Overby, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Triton Distribution Systems, Inc. on Form 10-QSB/A for the fiscal
quarter ended March 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Triton
Distribution Systems, Inc.








Date:
July 8,
2008                          By:/s/ Michael W.
Overby


Michael W. Overby


Chief Financial Officer
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-2018-0025-5984

Apergy ESP Systems, 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 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
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7649

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEITH ERIC SAUNDERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CR-95-251, CA-00-681-1) Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 22, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith Eric Saunders, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Stanley Glaser, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Keith Eric Saunders seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate ofappealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Saunders , Nos. CR-95-251, CA-00- 681-1 (M.D.N.C. July 3, 2001). We deny the motion for appointment of counsel. 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.

DISMISSED