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

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6249

BorgWarner, 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
#### Helena Ciaccio, Appellant-Respondent, v Joseph G. Ciaccio, Respondent-Appellant.

In an action, *inter alia,*for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Buell, J.), entered October 19, 1988, as granted those branches of her motion which were for an award of temporary maintenance and child support only to the extent of awarding her the monthly sum of $2,500, and failed to allocate the award between temporary maintenance and child support, and the defendant husband cross-appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of the same order as granted those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for an award of temporary maintenance and counsel fees.

Ordered that the order is modified, by allocating the monthly award of $2,500 as follows: $1,500 for temporary maintenance and $1,000 for temporary child support; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, with costs to the plaintiff wife.

While the plaintiff wife had sought, in relevant part, an allocated award of temporary maintenance and temporary child support, it appears that the Supreme Court awarded her an unallocated sum of $2,500, which represented the average monthly amount that the defendant husband had been voluntarily giving her for her support and the support of their child. The parties’ financial circumstances as set forth in the *495record do not warrant a modification of the total monthly sum awarded pendente lite by the Supreme Court. However, we find it appropriate to allocate $1,500 of the award for temporary maintenance and the remaining $1,000 for temporary child support.

There is no basis to disturb the Supreme Court’s discretionary award of pendente lite counsel fees in the sum of $5,000 to the wife *(see, DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete,*70 NY2d 879, 881). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
#### Orin E. ATKINS, Movant, v. KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION, Respondent.

No. 90-SC-437-KB.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

June 28, 1990.

Joseph E. Arnold, Lexington, Orin E. Atkins, West Palm Beach, for movant.

Ray Clooney, Bar Counsel, Kentucky Bar Ass’n, Frankfort, for respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER

Movant Orin E. Atkins has filed a motion to resign from the practice of law under *726terms of disbarment. The Kentucky Bar Association has responded that it has no objection to said motion. The grounds for such motion are as follows:

1. On September 14, 1989, movant Orin E. Atkins pled guilty to two felonies involving conspiracy and fraud in the United States District court for the Southern District of New York.

2. On May 22, 1990, the Inquiry Tribunal of the Kentucky Bar Association issued a charge against movant pursuant to SCR 3.160(2), based upon allegations contained in the United States Information in *United States of America v. Orin E. Atkins,*89-CRIM-0697. The complaint of the Inquiry Tribunal alleges that movant’s conduct as set forth in the indictment is in violation of Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(3), (4), (5) and (6) which prohibit a lawyer from engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude; conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; or any other conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.

3. Movant has acknowledged that his conduct as charged by the Inquiry Tribunal and evidenced by his guilty plea represents violations of the code of Professional Responsibility, such conduct tending to bring the bench and bar into disrepute.

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Orin E. Atkins’ motion to resign from the Kentucky Bar Association is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

1. Movant shall not be permitted to engage in the practice of law, as defined by SCR 3.020, in the Commonwealth of Kentucky until such time as the Supreme Court of Kentucky enters an order reinstating his membership in the Kentucky Bar Association.

2. Movant shall not file an application for reinstatement for a period of five years from the date of this opinion and order.

3. Any application for reinstatement filed by movant shall be governed by SCR 3.520, reinstatement in case of disbarment, or any subsequent amendment to SCR 3.520.

4.Movant shall comply with the provisions of SCR 3.390 regarding notice to all courts in which he has matters pending and to all clients for whom he is actively involved in representation of his inability to continue to represent them and of the necessity and urgency of promptly retaining new counsel. Movant shall furnish copies of such letters of notice to the Director of the Kentucky Bar Association. So much of this proceeding as contained in this order shall constitute public record.

All concur.

ENTERED: June 28, 1990.

/s/Robert F. Stephens Chief Justice
**EXHIBIT 31.01**

**Rule13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certifications**

I, Benjamin C. Weston, Chief Executive Officer and President of MerrillLynch Alternative Investments LLC, the manager of ML Aspect FuturesAccess LLC,certify that:

1. I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-Q of ML Aspect FuturesAccess LLC;

2. Based on my knowledge,this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this annualreport;

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this annualreport, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)  Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

a)  All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date:  May 15, 2007
| By                                     | /s/ BENJAMIN C.  WESTON |   |
|----------------------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
| Benjamin C.  Weston                    |
| Chief Executive  Officer and President |
| (Principal  Executive Officer)         |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5526 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5526

    To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to clarify the 
   application of the in-office ancillary services exception to the 
   physician self-referral prohibition for drugs furnished under the 
                           Medicare program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 18, 2023

Mrs. Harshbarger (for herself, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Fleischmann, 
  Mr. Davis of North Carolina, Mrs. Miller-Meeks, and Mr. Balderson) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
   Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and 
 Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
   each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to clarify the 
   application of the in-office ancillary services exception to the 
   physician self-referral prohibition for drugs furnished under the 
                           Medicare program.

    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 ``Seniors' Access to Critical 
Medications Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFYING THE APPLICATION OF THE IN-OFFICE ANCILLARY SERVICES 
              EXCEPTION TO THE PHYSICIAN SELF-REFERRAL PROHIBITION FOR 
              DRUGS FURNISHED UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--Section 1877(b)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395nn(b)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
sentence: ``With respect to services consisting of drugs, and any 
supplies necessary to administer such drugs, furnished on or after May 
11, 2023, the requirement that such drugs and supplies be furnished in 
accordance with subparagraph (A)(ii) in order to qualify as a case 
described in this paragraph shall not apply.''.
    (b) Withdrawal of FAQs.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
shall remove the frequently asked questions and answers published on 
the website of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on 
September 20, 2021, and May 19, 2023, which prohibit or seek to 
prohibit the arrangement described in the amendment made by subsection 
(a) and those frequently asked questions and answers shall be deemed to 
have never been published.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 23.2

 

**Consent ofIndependent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-88454) pertaining to the FirstAmended and Restated 1999 Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan, the RegistrationStatement (Form S-8 No. 333-143216) pertaining to the Alamo Group Inc. 2005Incentive Stock Option Plan and the Shelf Registration Statement (Form S-3 No.333-136089) of Alamo Group Inc. and related prospectus of our report datedMarch 6, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of AlamoGroup Inc. as of and for each of the years in the period ended December 31,2008, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December31, 2009.

 

 

Ernst & Young LLP                                                                                              

San Antonio, Texas

March 15, 2010
Exhibit 10.29.1






Exhibit 10.29.1




Termination of Split Dollar Agreement and Endorsement




This Termination of Split Dollar Agreement and Endorsement (this “Agreement”) by and
between The Cortland Savings and Banking Company, an Ohio-chartered bank (the “Bank”), and Stephen
A. Telego, Sr., an Officer of the Bank (the “Executive”), is made and entered into and shall be
effective as of this 12th day of March, 2010.



Whereas, the Bank and the Executive entered into a Third Amended Split Dollar
Agreement and Endorsement dated as of December 3, 2008 (the “Split Dollar Agreement and
Endorsement”),



Whereas, the Bank and the Executive desire now to terminate the Split Dollar
Agreement and Endorsement, and



Whereas, the Bank and the Executive intend that from and after the effective date of
this Agreement the Split Dollar Agreement and Endorsement and the associated Split Dollar Policy
Endorsement or Endorsements shall be void and shall have no further force or effect.



Now Therefore, in consideration of these premises and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Bank and the
Executive hereby agree as follows.



1. Termination
of the Split Dollar Agreement and Endorsement. Effective as of the date first
written above, the Split Dollar Agreement and Endorsement is terminated and shall have no further
force or effect. Neither the Executive nor any beneficiary of the Executive shall make any claim
for benefits under the Split Dollar Agreement and Endorsement. Neither the Executive nor any
beneficiary of the Executive shall make any claim for benefits under the Split Dollar Policy
Endorsement or Endorsements appended to or associated with the Split Dollar Agreement and
Endorsement. The Split Dollar Policy Endorsement or Endorsements shall be void and of no further
force or effect as of the effective date of this Agreement. The Executive acknowledges and agrees
that the Bank shall be fully discharged from all liabilities or obligations under the Split Dollar
Agreement and Endorsement and the associated Split Dollar Policy Endorsement or Endorsements as of
the effective date of this Agreement.



2. Applicable Law. This Agreement and all rights hereunder shall be governed by the laws of
the State of Ohio, except to the extent preempted by the laws of the United States of America.



3. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the Bank and the
Executive concerning the subject matter.



In Witness Whereof, the Executive and a duly authorized officer of the Bank have
executed this Termination of Split Dollar Agreement and Endorsement as of the date first written
above.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Executive	 	The Cortland Savings and Banking Company
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Stephen A. Telego Sr.
 


	 	By:
	 	/s/ James Gasior
 

	 	 
	Stephen A. Telego, Sr.

	 	
	 	Its: President & Chief Executive Officer
| 1.     | Such      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2009,      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                          |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
| 2.     | The      information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period      ended August 31, 2009, fairly presents, in all material respects, the      financial condition and results of operations of Placer Gold      Corp. |

| By:                | /s/      Peter J. Sterling                                                                                                                                                              |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|     | Peter      J. SterlingPresident,      Principal Executive Officer, Treasurer, Principal Financial Officer,      Principal Accounting Officer and      a member of the Board ofDirectors |
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Kenneth MILLER, Appellant. Kenneth MILLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 65266, 67616.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Aug. 1, 1995.

Rosalynn Koch, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Fernando Bermudez, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the judgment entered upon his conviction by a jury of felony stealing over $150.00 in violation of § 570.030 RSMo 1994. The court sentenced him as a prior offender to seven years imprisonment. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

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 our reasoning. The judgment and denial of post-conviction relief are affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered PublicAccounting Firm**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.33-70342, 33-63752, 333-11975, 333-80925, 333-40540, 333-88490, 333-127414) andin the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-134936) of our reports datedFebruary 18, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements ofStation Casinos, Inc. and its subsidiaries, Station Casinos, Inc. and itssubsidiaries management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal controlover financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting of Station Casinos, Inc. and its subsidiaries, included inthe Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006.

 

/s/Ernst & Young LLP

 

Las Vegas, Nevada

February 27,2007

 

----
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-2018-0025-6791

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
#### Walter Bruce GREEN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. [ AXX-XX-XXXXX ]-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.).

April 20, 1989.

Michael S. McNeely, Richmond, for appellant.

John F. Healey, Jr. and Richard A. Dawson, Richmond, for appellee.

Before J. CURTISS BROWN, C.J., and JUNELL and DRAUGHN, JJ.

OPINION

JUNELL, Justice.

A jury convicted appellant of burglary of a habitation and sentenced him to twenty years confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections. In a single point of error appellant alleges that the State purposely excluded all members of his race on the basis of race alone by use of its peremptory strikes. We affirm.

We hold that appellant waived his objection made under authority of *Batson v. Kentucky,*476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986).

After the voir dire of the jury panel a jury was impaneled and sworn. The remainder of the venire was dismissed. A lunch recess was then taken during which appellant filed a *“Batson*Challenge”. The State objected to appellant’s motion, arguing that it came too late. The trial court agreed with the State but nonetheless held a hearing to determine if the prosecutor could articulate racially neutral reasons for striking the black venirepersons from the panel. The challenge was then overruled. Appellant concedes his *Batson*motion was not timely filed because it was made subsequent to the jury being impaneled, but argues that untimeliness was cured by the court’s hearing of the challenge. He cites no authority for such an argument.

To be timely, a *Batson*objection to the State’s use of its peremptory challenges must be made before the jury is sworn and the venire is discharged. *Henry v. State,*729 S.W.2d 732, 736, 737 (Tex.Crim.App.1987); *Price v. State,*726 S.W.2d 611, 613 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no pet.); *Catley v. State,*726 S.W.2d 595 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no pet.); *United States v. Erwin,*793 F.2d 656, 667 *577(5th Cir.1986), *cert. denied,*479 U.S. 991, 107 S.Ct. 589, 93 L.Ed.2d 590.

By this procedure the prosecutor is put on notice that he may be required to come forward with neutral explanations for striking the black venirepersons. With the venire still before him, the prosecutor may associate the names and faces of the stricken venirepersons with his reasons for striking them. A challenge made at this time allows the court its full range of options to correct any error discovered in a *Batson*hearing. *Henry v. State,*729 S.W.2d, at 737. Additionally, this procedure prevents a defendant from making a *Batson*challenge for the primary purpose of obtaining a fresh and perhaps more desirable jury panel.

Because appellant’s objection was untimely, he has waived it. Appellant’s sole point of error is overruled.

The judgment is affirmed.