alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: April 23, 2015 519364 

________________________________

In the Matter of DARRYL 

SHELTON, 

Petitioner, 

v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

COMMISSIONER OF DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY 

SUPERVISION, 

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: February 24, 2015

Before: Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Rose and Clark, JJ.

__________

Darryl Shelton, Stormville, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H.

Schiff of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this

Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to

review a determination of respondent which found petitioner

guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding

challenging a tier III disciplinary determination finding him

guilty of violating two prison disciplinary rules. The Attorney

General has advised this Court that the disciplinary

determination at issue has been administratively reversed, all

references thereto have been expunged from petitioner's

institutional record and the mandatory surcharge has been

refunded to him, and requests that the proceeding be dismissed as

moot. Although petitioner opposes respondent's request to the
-2- 519364 

extent that he seeks to be returned to the correctional facility

where he was housed prior to the disciplinary determination, 

"inmates have no constitutional or statutory right to their prior

housing status" (Matter of Hernandez v Goord, 279 AD2d 919, 919

[2001] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see

Matter of Foley v Fischer, 79 AD3d 1488, 1488 [2010]). We do

note, however, that the loss of good time incurred by petitioner

as a result of the determination should be restored (see Matter

of Hayes v Annucci, 122 AD3d 992, 992 [2014]). Otherwise,

petitioner has been afforded all the relief to which he is

entitled and the petition is dismissed as moot (see Matter of

Bank v Racette, 122 AD3d 991, 992 [2014]). 

Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Rose and Clark, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without

costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF OFFICERS


OF
BIO-BRIDGE SCIENCE, INC.


PURSUANT
TO 18 USC ss. 1350





I, Liang
Qiao, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(a) The
quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 of Bio-Bridge
Science, Inc. (the "Company"), fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(b)
Information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




Date:
      8/16/2010
                /s/ Dr. Liang
      QiaoBy:
      Dr. Liang Qiao
                  Chief
      Executive Officer





I, Chuen
Huei (Kevin) Lee, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(c) The
quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 of Bio-Bridge
Science, Inc. (the "Company") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(d)
Information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




Date:
      8/16/2010
                /s/ Chuen Huei (Kevin)
      LeeBy:
      Chuen Huei (Kevin) Lee
                  Chief
      Financial Officer and
                  Principal
      Accounting Officer
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 22

- 00338

- CV

K IMBERLY G OESLING , Appellant

V

.

A MERICAN A IRLINES , I NC

. , Appellee §

§
§
§ On Appeal from the 342nd District Co ur t

of Tarrant County ( 342

- 314565

- 20 )

October 26, 2023
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Bassel
JUDGMENT
This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there
was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the ju dgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Appellant Kimberly Goesling shall pay all costs of this
appeal, for which let execution issue

.
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Dabney Bassel Justice Dabne y Bassel
PUBLIC VERSION
$[*********] [******]

$[*********]

INPUT

20.0

$[*********]

[******]

[******]

0.05

PUBLIC VERSION
Consistent with USTR's Section 301 notice, OMRON Management Center of America, Inc. requests

confidential treatment for the information designated as business confidential in this submission. Such

information consists of information that would not customarily be released to the public, including

business or trade secrets regarding production costs and processes, data on sales, product characteristics

customers, destinations, and other product, sales, and cost-related business secrets. Business confidential

information has been indicated herein by enclosing it in single brackets (“[ ]”). A public version of these

comments is also being filed with all confidential information removed.

OMRON in the US is the only designer of this product and only supplier of this component.

KNOB,4WAY ROCKER MIRROR SWITCH is a molded plastic switch actuator, and is used only for

automotive purposes in power mirrors, of which is an OEM-specified dimension. It is only used for

further assembly of components which go into domestic automobile production, which is specified by

auto manufacturer.

This product is not a target of the US Administration's 301 investigation regarding Intellectual Property

concerns. This is not a concern to IP transfer and impressment. This product contains no IP of interest

related to autonomous vehicle production.

The tariff action ultimately poses a risk of significant damage to OMRON, the domestic automobile

industry, and ultimately the US consumer as a increase in price. Like in the case of similar approvals for

vehicle components at the HTS level, OMRON views this product in the same manner. Immediate

movement of production to a US manufacturer or another country would pose significant re-tooling

costs, significant amounts of time, and approvals pertaining to consumer automobile safety standards are

costly and would take a significant amount of time to obtain.

OMRON Management Center of America, Inc. believes that CBP can easily exclude the KNOB,4WAY

ROCKER MIRROR SWITCH in question based solely on the product description. The following are

draft CBP exclusion instructions:

"KNOB,4WAY ROCKER MIRROR SWITCH ; cylindrical, tapered directional switch with four arrows

on the circular face Plastic knob for made of plastic resin PC CLR LEXAN 121R Dimensions 31mm

x31mm x15.15mm."

This information will be contained on the invoice from the supplier.

PUBLIC VERSION
EXHIBIT 32.1

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


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of North Penn Bancorp, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Frederick L. Hickman, President and Chief Executive 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 the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.




Date:   March 29, 2006                   /s/ Frederick L. Hickman
        --------------                   -------------------------------------
                                         Frederick L. Hickman
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of the Chief Executive Officer

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 WMG Acquisition Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Edgar Bronfman, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of WMG Acquisition Corp., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: May 5, 2006



/s/    EDGAR BRONFMAN,
JR.Edgar Bronfman, Jr.Chief Executive 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-2018-0025-6421

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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

April 12, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6745

Apex Sourcing & Manufacturing: 

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

_04.15.19.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,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
#### Jerome PHILLIPS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 62731.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Oct. 12, 1993.

Susan K. Eckles, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Jerome Phillips, appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.036 motion without an evidentiary hearing. The judgments of conviction sought to be vacated were for two counts of assault in the first degree, unlawful use of a weapon, and armed criminal action. Movant was sentenced as a prior and persis*518tent and class X offender to concurrent terms of imprisonment of life, 20 years, ten years, and 30 years.

The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous; no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value.

The judgment of the motion court is affirmed. Rule 84.16.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-K FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JANUARY 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                   
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998 
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1997 
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998 
<CASH>                                           3,199 
<SECURITIES>                                    22,483 
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,677 
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (100) 
<INVENTORY>                                          0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,580 
<PP&E>                                           5,651 
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,225) 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  40,095 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,867 
<BONDS>                                              0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0 
<PREFERRED>                                          0 
<COMMON>                                            11 
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,796 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    40,095 
<SALES>                                         25,363 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,363 
<CGS>                                            8,115 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,115 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,251 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,391) 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,388 
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,444 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,944 
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0 
<CHANGES>                                            0 
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,944 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.47 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.42  
        

</TABLE>
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-2018-0025-7087

ECM Industries 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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 18399]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8788]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. GP94-19-000]


Oklahoma Corporation Commission Tight Formation Area 
Determination FERC No. JD94-01286T (Oklahoma-57); Notice of Informal 
Conference

April 5, 1995.

    Take notice that an informal conference will be convened in the 
above-referenced proceeding on Thursday, April 20, 1995, at 10:00 a.m. 
The conference will be held in Room No. 3400-C, at the offices of the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426.

    For further information, contact Marilyn Rand at (202) 208-0444.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95-8788 Filed 4-10-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5528 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5528

   To evaluate the impact of the lowest price technically acceptable 
 source selection process on national security, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 18, 2023

  Mr. Donalds (for himself and Mrs. Boebert) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                             Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To evaluate the impact of the lowest price technically acceptable 
 source selection process on national security, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Safe and Smart Federal Purchasing 
Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. EVALUATION OF IMPACT OF THE LOWEST PRICE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE 
              SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS ON NATIONAL SECURITY.

    (a) Evaluation.--The Director shall evaluate the procurement 
activities of each agency to determine whether the provisions of 
section 15.101-2 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation have created any 
national security risk.
    (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the enactment of this 
Act, the Director shall submit a report on the results of the 
evaluation under subsection (a) to--
            (1) the Committee on Oversight and Accountability of the 
        House of Representatives; and
            (2) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
        Affairs of the Senate.
    (c) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the meaning given that 
        term in section 133 of title 41, United States Code.
            (2) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
        the Office of Management and Budget.
                                 <all>
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 23

- 00242

- CV

101 LEXINGTON TOWER, LLC and Lex Avenue Hotel, LLC,

Appellants

v.

830 N. ST. MARY ’ S HOTEL, LTD. and Phoenix Hospitality Riverwalk, LLC,

Appellees

From the 37th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022CI09922

Honorable Mary Lou Alvarez , Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ

, JUSTICE RIOS , AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s March 28, 202 3

amended temporary injunction order is AFFIRMED. Costs of court for this appeal are taxed

against 101 Lexington Tower, LLC and Lex Avenue Hotel, LLC.

SIGNED August 2, 2023.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
#### Gerard GEILER, Appellant, v. Angela D. SULLIVAN-GEILER, Respondent, and Edward C. Geiler, and Ida June Geiler, Intervenors.

No. 63310.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

Sept. 7, 1993.

*396Jeffrey Philip Dix, Jackson, for appellant.

James Michael McClellan, Sikeston, Herbert A. Kasten, Jr., St. Louis, Francis J. Elpers, Genevieve, for respondent.

Before GARY M. GAERTNER, C.J., and REINHARD and PUDLOWSKI, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Gerard Geiler, appeals from the September 10, 1992, order of the Circuit Court of Perry County dissolving his marriage to respondent, Angela D. Sullivan-Geiler, granting custody of the minor child to respondent, and dividing the marital property. We affirm.

The order of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. In addition, no error of law appears. As we find an opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm the trial court’s order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for our holding.