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

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5966

Scosche Industries, Inc:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20. 

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

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

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

READYONE INDUSTRIES, INC.,

Appellant,

v.

JOEL ANTONIO FLORES,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 13

- 00161

- CV

Appeal from

171st District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2012

- DCV

- 02074)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in the

judgment. We therefore reverse the judgment of the court below and remand the cause for

further proceedings, in accordance with this Court = s opinion. We further order that Appellant

recover from Appellee all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue, and this decision be

certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 10TH DAY OF DECEM BER , 2014.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.

(Rivera, J., not participating)
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of Universal
Fog, Inc. for the quarter ending April 30, 2005, I, Tom Bontems, Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Universal Fog, Inc. hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

     1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending April
          30, 2005, 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-QSB for
          the quarter ending April 30, 2005, fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
          Universal Fog, Inc.

Dated: June 13, 2005

UNIVERSAL FOG, INC.

By: /s/ Tom Bontems
-------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-30377 Summary Calendar

ROB W. ROBERTS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ARMY, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 99-CV-472

-------------------- September 26, 2001 Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Rob Roberts appeals pro se from a dismissal for untimely service of process. This court reviews for abuse of discretion a
dismissal for failure to effect timely service. S ystems Signs Supplies v. United States Dep’t of Justice , 903 F. 2d 1011, 1013 (5th Cir. 1990). Roberts argues that Rule 4 requires the court to give him guidance on how to effect proper service. Rule 4 requires only that the court notify a claimant that dismissal is impending
for lack of timely service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The record
reflects that the court gave Roberts every consideration, grantingNo. 01-30377 -2- multiple time extensions with specific service instructions.
Moreover, Roberts’s pro se status doe s not exempt him from effecting proper service. S ee Kersh v. Derozier , 851 F.2d 1509,
1512 (5th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, the district court did not
abuse its discretion in dismissing Roberts’s complaint for untimely
service.

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 76 (Thursday, April 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19763-19764]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9742]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[NV-930-1430-01; N-57922]


Approved Amendment and Decision Record

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Caliente Management Framework Plan and Nellis Air Range 
Resource Plan Approved White Sides [[Page 19764]] Land Withdrawal 
Amendment and Decision Record has been completed and is available to 
the public. This amendment will allow for the implementation of a 
United States Air Force proposal to withdraw 3,972 acres of public land 
in Lincoln County, Nevada. The purpose of the withdrawal is to provide 
a security and safety buffer to the adjacent withdrawn Nellis Air Force 
Range.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Approved Land Use Plan Amendment and Decision 
Record may be obtained by writing to: Bureau of Land Management, Las 
Vegas District Office, 4765 W. Vegas Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89108.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Dwyer, District Manager, at the 
above Las Vegas District address or telephone (702) 647-5000.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The withdrawal will remove the subject lands 
from settlement, sale, or entry under the public land laws, including 
the mining laws of the United States subject to valid existing rights. 
It will be for a period of about six years, ending November 6, 2001, 
with the opportunity for reviews and renewal. All forms of public 
access, recreation, mineral exploration, oil and gas leasing, and 
mineral development will be prohibited. The land withdrawal will not 
allow for the construction of any on-site facilities or air-to-ground 
targeting activities. However, it will allow for the maintenance of 
existing roads and placing of security devises (e.g., posting, warning 
signs, sensors) along or near the boundary of the withdrawal area.
    The Caliente Management Framework Plan is amended to exclude the 
withdrawal area. The Nellis Air Force Range Resource Plan is amended to 
include the additional acreage. Management of the land to be withdrawn 
will conform to decisions in the Nellis Air Force Range Resource Plan. 
The Bureau of Land Management will continue to administer livestock 
grazing on the Bald Mountain Allotment. The Caliente Management 
Framework Plan will continue to provide management direction for the 
non-withdrawn portions of the grazing allotment and the Nellis Air 
Force Range Resource Plan will provide management direction for those 
portions of the allotment within the military withdrawal.
    Copies of the Approved Plan Amendment and Decision Record will be 
mailed to all individuals who participated in the planning process and 
other individuals upon request.

    Dated: April 7, 1995.

Ann J. Morgan,

State Director, Nevada.

[FR Doc. 95-9742 Filed 4-19-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-HC-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6888

Polaris Industries, 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/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.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 the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

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,

Stephen P. Vaughn

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-2018-0025-6945

Integrity Fusion, 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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19470-19471]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9512]




DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[CFDA No.: 84.158]


Secondary Education and Transitional Services for Youth With 
Disabilities Program; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for 
Fiscal Year (FY) 1995

    Purpose of Program: To assist youth with disabilities in the 
transition from secondary school to postsecondary environments, such as 
competitive or supported employment, and to ensure that secondary 
special education and transitional services result in competitive or 
supported employment for youth with disabilities.
    This priority support the National Educational Goals by assisting 
those with disabilities in meeting school readiness and adult literacy 
goals.
    Elibible Applicants: Institutions of higher education (IHEs), State 
educational agencies (SEAs), Local educational agencies (LEAs), and 
other public or private nonprofit institutions or agencies.
    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: June 2, 1995.
    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: August 1, 1995.
    Applications Available: April 18, 1995.
    Available Funds: $1,400,000.
    Estimated Range of Awards: $1,400,000
    Estimated Average Size of Awards: $1,400,000
    Estimated Number of Awards: 1
    Project Period: Up to 60 months
    Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General 
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR Parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 
81, 82, 85, and 86; and (b) The regulations in 34 CFR Parts 326 and 
426.
    Priority: The priority in the notice of final priority for this 
program, as published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register 
applies to this competition.
    For Applications: To request an application telephone (202) 205-
8162. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf 
(TDD) may call the TDD number at (202) 205-8169.

For Further Information Contact: Michael Ward, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Room 4624, Switzer Building, 
Washington, D.C. 20202-2644. Telephone : (202) 205-8163. Individuals 
who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the TDD 
number at (202) 205-8169.
    Information about the Department's funding opportunities including 
copies [[Page 19471]] of application notices for discretionary grant 
competitions, can be viewed on the Department's electronic bulletin 
board (ED Board), telephone (202) 260-9950; or on the Internet Gopher 
Server at GOPHER.ED.GOV (under Announcements, Bulletins, and Press 
Releases). However, the official application notice for a discretionary 
grant competition is the notice published in the Federal Register.

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1425, 20 U.S.C. 2420a, 20 U.S.C. 
761a(b) (4) and (6), 29 U.S.C. 777a(d), and 20 U.S.C. 1231(b).

    Dated: April 13, 1995.
Howard R. Moses,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services.
[FR Doc. 95-9512 Filed 4-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

MICHAEL MARTINEZ , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 15

- 1526

[ July 29, 2015 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for
the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Okeechobee County ; Sherwood Bauer, Jr.

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 472010CF638A

.

Michael Martinez, Jasper, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

. See Martinez v. State, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D1313 (Fla. 4th DCA June 3, 2015 )

G ROSS , M AY and K LINGENSMITH
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Paul E. VAN NESS, Defendant/Respondent.

No. 69581.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

April 30, 1996.

Blake R. Fischer, Asst. Pros. Atty., Franklin County, Union, for Appellant.

John Downard, Union, for Respondent.

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

PER CURIAM.

The State of Missouri appeals the dismissal of the driving while intoxicated charge against defendant Paul E. Van Ness. The trial court found the prosecution of the charge violated the Double Jeopardy Clause because defendant previously had his license administratively suspended.

This case is controlled by the Missouri Supreme Court’s recent decision in *State v. Mayo,*915 S.W.2d 758 (Mo. banc 1996). *145There, the court held a charge of driving while intoxicated is not barred by Double Jeopardy because the defendant’s license had been administratively suspended. Thus, it reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the charge against the defendant.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 13, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41277

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERTO VILLARREAL-GUERRERO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:06-CR-453-ALL

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

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:*

Roberto Villarreal-Guerrero (Villarreal) appeals the

sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry

following deportation. Although Villarreal concedes that his

sentence is to be reviewed for reasonableness under this court’s

precedent, he argues that a presumption of reasonableness

standard is unconstitutional. This court is bound by the Supreme

Court’s recent decision in Rita v. United States, — U.S. —, 127

S.Ct. 2456 (June 21, 2007) holding that we may apply a

presumption of reasonableness to a district court sentence that
No. 06-41277

-2-

falls within a properly calculated Sentencing Guidelines range.

Id. at 2463.

Villarreal also argues that his sentence of 46 months of

imprisonment, which was within the applicable advisory sentencing

guideline range, is unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

because the district court failed to consider mitigating factors.

It is clear from the record that the district court considered

the mitigating evidence offered by Villarreal at sentencing. 

Villarreal has not shown that his sentence was unreasonable or

that this court should not defer to the district court’s

determinations at sentencing. See United States v. Mares,

402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2005). 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
----

----

|   | (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:  February 11, 2011 |   |   | /s/ Kenneth J. Koock                                                |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                               |   |   | Kenneth J. KoockChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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-2018-0025-7238

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
EXHIBIT 99.8

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

 

 

We hereby consent to the inclusion in this Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2011 and the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-145236, 333-127265, 333-13456, 333-97305 and 333-6436), Form F-3 (File No. 33-77022) and Form F-10 (File No. 333-170200)****of Enbridge Inc. (the “Corporation”) of our report dated February 21, 2012, relating to the consolidated financial statements of the Corporation as at December 31, 2011 and 2010 and for each of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 2011 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as at December 31, 2011.

 

 

 
| “signed”         |   |
|----------------------------|--------|
| PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |   |
| Chartered Accountants      |   |
|                       |   |
|                       |   |
|                       |   |
| Calgary, Alberta, Canada   |   |
| February 21, 2012     |   |

 

----
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Alvin WASHINGTON, Appellant. Alvin WASHINGTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 64863, 66655.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

May 23, 1995.

Robert E. Steele, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David G. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SMITH, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and WHITE, JJ.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his conviction by a jury of one count of burglary in the second degree and the court imposed sentence of twenty years imprisonment as a prior, persistent and class X offender. The issues raised on direct appeal are without merit and no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The issue of ineffective assistance of counsel raised by Rule 29.15 motion is similarly without merit and discussion of it would have no jurisprudential purpose. The issue raised by Rule 29.15 motion concerning the absence of evidence to support the court’s finding that defendant is a class X offender is meritorious. *State v. Wickizer,*641 S.W.2d 849 (Mo.App.1982). Defendant stipulated to the issue of defendant’s status as a prior and persistent offender but not to his status as a class X offender. The state is required to establish that status. Defendant is not, as he contends, entitled to reversal and discharge. *State v. Cobb,*875 S.W.2d 533 (Mo. banc 1994)[3].

Judgment of conviction affirmed. Denial of motion for ineffective assistance of counsel affirmed. Cause remanded for further proceedings on defendant’s status as a class X offender and resentencing.