alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 66 (Thursday, April 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 17615]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8305]



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


Receipt of Petition for Federal Acknowledgment of Existence as an 
Indian Tribe

    This is published in the exercise of authority delegated by the 
Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs by 
209 DM 8.
    Pursuant to 25 CFR 83.9(a) (formerly 25 CFR 54.8(a)) notice is 
hereby given that the Amonsoquath Tribe of Cherokee, c/o Martin Wilson, 
P.O. Box 296, Deering, Missouri 63840-0296; has filed a petition for 
acknowledgment by the Secretary of the Interior that the group exists 
as an Indian tribe. The petition was received by the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs (BIA) on February 17, 1995, and was signed by members of the 
group's governing body.
    This is a notice of receipt of petition and does not constitute 
notice that the petition is under active consideration. Notice of 
active consideration will be sent by mail to the petitioner and other 
interested parties at the appropriate time.
    Under Sec. 83.9(a) (formerly Sec. 54.8(d)) of the Federal 
regulations, interested parties and informed parties may submit factual 
and/or legal arguments in support of or in opposition to the group's 
petition. Any information submitted will be made available on the same 
basis as other information in the BIA's files. Such submissions will be 
provided to the petitioner upon receipt by the BIA. The petitioner will 
be provided an opportunity to respond to such submissions prior to a 
final determination regarding the petitioner's status.
    The petition may be examined, by appointment, in the Department of 
the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Branch of Acknowledgment and 
Research, Room 1362-MIB, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240, 
Phone: (202) 208-3592.

    Dated March 23, 1995.
Ada E. Deer,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 95-8305 Filed 4-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          78,911
<SECURITIES>                                   118,392
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,643,515
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  6,579,320
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,489,295
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 803,356
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,060,129
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,982,208
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,360,274
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,272,147
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,060,129
<SALES>                                      7,958,138
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,958,138
<CGS>                                        7,735,839
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,735,839
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,708,028
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             316,913
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,408,200)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,408,200)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,408,200)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-7637

United Scope LLC: 

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

_05.09.19.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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 17
- 00661
- CR

Austin Ray Carpenter, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 119TH DISTR ICT COURT OF TOM GRE EN COUNTY NO. B
- 16
- 0348
- SB, TH E HONORABLE MARTIN ( BROCK) JONES, JUDGE PR ESIDING

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

PER CURIAM

Appellant’s brief was originally due December 15 , 201 7 . On April 12, 2018 , this Court sent a notice to appellant informing him that his brief was overdu e and that a failure to file a satisfactory response by April 23, 2018 , would result in the referral of this case to the trial court for a hearing under Rule 38.8(b) of the Texa s Rules of Appellate Procedure.

The appeal is abated and remanded to the tria l court. The trial court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether appellant desires to prosecute this appeal and, if so, whether counsel has abandoned this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(2), (3). The court shall make appropriate written finding s and recommendations. See id. R. 38.8(b)(2), (3). If necessary, the court shall appoint substitute counsel who will effectively represent appellant in this appeal. Following the hearing, which shall be transcribed, the trial court shall order the appro priate2

supplemental clerk’s and reporter’s records

— including all findings and orders

— to be prepared
and forwarded to this Court no later than July 12, 2018. See id. R. 38.8(b)(3).

It is so ordered June 12, 2018.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Good win and Field
Abated and Remanded
Filed: June 12, 2018
Do Not Publish
#### Don SMITH, d/b/a Smith, Brown & Jones, Respondent, v. Gordon STOA, Appellant.

No. WD 49773.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

May 23, 1995.

Rehearing Denied June 27, 1995.

Byron Baker, Kansas City, for appellant.

Martha Halvordson, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before HANNA, P.J., and SPINDEN and LAURA DENVIN STITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the trial court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiff for breach of contract awarding plaintiff $13,964.17 and prejudgment interest of $2770.86. Although the trial court correctly determined the relevant time periods during which plaintiff was entitled to prejudgment interest, it mistakenly inserted incorrect numbers into the calculation. Therefore, the judgment is affirmed in all respects except that the trial court’s computation of prejudgment interest is modified from $2770.86 to $1524.89. Because there is no precedential value in publishing an opinion, we issue this Rule 84.16(b) order.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 1254

In re: RAYMOND ALAN GRIFFIN , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . ( 5:18

- cr
- 00096

- BO

- 1 )

Submitted : June 13, 2019 Decided: June 17, 2019

Before WYNN and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Petition s denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
Raymond Alan Griffin, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Raymond Alan Griffin has filed both a petition and an amended petition for a writ
of mandamus in which he seeks an order from this court directing the district court to rule
on several motions Griffin filed in his criminal matter . Gr iffin also ask s th is court to

correct numerous errors and constitutional violations he alleges have occurred during his
criminal proceedings

. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. C t. , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United
States v. Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516

- 17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought , In re First Fed.
Sav. & Loan Ass’n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4 th Cir. 1988) , and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 82 6 (4th Cir. 1987); see In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4 th Cir. 2007).
We conclude that Griffin is not entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny Griffin’s mandamus petitions . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decis ional process.
PETITION S DENIED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Hoppolito Torres, Also Known as Gustalo Perez, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd G. Goodman, J.), rendered May 20, 1988, which convicted defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree and sentenced him, as a second violent felony offender, to an *386indeterminate prison term of from 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

On August 27, 1989, defendant was observed by a tenant pushing a metal device into the cylinder locks of the entrance doors to two apartments.

On appeal defendant asserts that the hallway in which he was observed was not a dwelling but a public place. Therefore, it is urged that all the elements of the crime of burglary were not met. We do not agree.

The term dwelling is defined by Penal Law § 140.00 (3) as a "building” which is usually occupied by a person lodging therein at night. *People v McCurdy*(86 AD2d 493, 497-498 [2d Dept 1982]) recognized that while hallways of multioccupant dwellings are often of a public nature, the hallway of a brownstone with a locked front door should be considered part of the dwelling. The apartment building in question is six stories, but also was locked at the front door and was equipped with a buzzer and intercom system. There was also a "No Trespassing” sign in both English and Spanish posted at the entrance.

More recently, in *People v Rodriquez*(159 AD2d 201 [1st Dept 1990]), we held that the first-floor stairwell of a housing project separated from the lobby by a door was open only to building residents and their invitees.

Defendant’s remaining claims relating to summation comments, none of which was preserved (CPL 470.05 [2]), nonetheless, are meritless. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kassal, Ellerin, Smith and Rubin, JJ.
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-2018-0025-6065

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
**Exhibit 32.1**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Mark Holcombe, 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 on Form 10-Q of Blacksands Petroleum, Inc., for the fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained        in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Blacksands Petroleum, Inc.

 

| Date: March 17, 2010 | By: /s/ Mark Holcombe |
|----------------------|-----------------------|

|   | Mark Holcombe, Principal Executive Officer |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|

 

 

23

 

----
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-2018-0025-6056

Aisin World Corp. of America:

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
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 10.25

                         FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT OF
               PURCHASE AND SALE AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS BETWEEN
               THIRD HORIZON GROUP LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ("SELLER")
                  AND TRIPLE NET PROPERTIES, LLC ("PURCHASER")
                     DATED MARCH 24, 2000 (THE "AGREEMENT")

      WHEREAS, Seller and Purchaser have entered into the Agreement for purposes
of the sale and acquisition of certain parcels of improved real property (the
"Real Property") located in various locations throughout the United States and
more particularly described in the Agreement;

      WHEREAS, the Due Diligence Approval Date, as defined in the Agreement,
is currently April 23, 2000;

      WHEREAS, Purchaser has not yet completed the necessary due diligence to
determine whether the Real Property is an appropriate investment for Purchaser
and has, therefore, requested an extension of the Due Diligence Approval Date.

      NOW, THEREFORE, Seller and Purchaser, for $10.00 and other good and
sufficient consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, agree to the following:

      1.    DUE DILIGENCE APPROVAL DATE. Purchaser and Seller hereby agree to
            extend, for all purposes, the Due Diligence Approval Date to 5:00
            p.m. Central time on April 26, 2000.

      2.    MISCELLANEOUS. Any initially captioned terms contained in this
            Amendment that are not separately defined herein shall have the
            meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement. Except as modified and
            amended by this Amendment, all other terms and conditions of this
            Agreement are hereby reconfirmed by Purchaser and Seller.

                              [Signature page to follow]


                                       1
<PAGE>

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, SELLER AND PURCHASER DO HEREBY EXECUTE THIS AMENDMENT
AS OF THIS 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2000.

SELLER:                                   PURCHASER:

THIRD HORIZON GROUP                       TRIPLE NET PROPERTIES, LLC,
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,                      a Virginia limited liability company
a Delaware limited partnership


By:   THIRD HORIZON HGI, L.L.C.,          By:   /s/ RICHARD GEE
      a Delaware limited liability              ------------------------------
      company, its general partner              Name: Richard Gee
                                                      ------------------------
                                                Its:  Executive Vice President
                                                      ------------------------
  By: HORIZON GROUP PROPERTIES, L.P.,
      a Delaware limited partnership,
      its managing partner

  BY: Horizon Group Properties, Inc.
      a Maryland corporation, its
      general partner

      By: /s/ Gary J. Skoien
          -----------------------------
          Name: Gary J. Skoien
                -----------------------
          Its:  President
                -----------------------



                                       2
#### Dennis BILLUPS, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Roger PROCTOR, Defendant/Respondent.

No. 68718.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Aug. 13, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Sept. 9,1996.

Application to Transfer Denied Oct. 22,1996.

Dennis Billups, Florissant, pro se.

Steven C. Bublitz, Hazelwood, for respondent.

Before CRAHAN, P.J., and CRANDALL and DOWD, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Dennis Billups appeals the summary judgment entered in his action for fraudulent misrepresentation against Roger Proctor. We affirm. No error of law appears, and an extended opinion would have no precedential *67value. Judgment affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b)(2).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Reginald Troy, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lombardo, J.), rendered December 20, 1984, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On the instant appeal, the defendant argues that the court erred when it failed to charge that guilt had to be proven to a "moral certainty”. Preliminarily, we note that this argument has not been preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Hoke,*62 NY2d 1022; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245, 248-252). In any event, this argument must be rejected on the merits. The evidence against the defendant was both direct and circumstantial, and accordingly, a special instruction regarding circumstantial evidence was not required *(see, People v Ruiz,*52 NY2d 929; *People v Barnes,*50 NY2d 375; *People v Lilly,*158 AD2d 622; *People v Ellis,*146 AD2d 709).

The defendant also argues that the trial court repeatedly criticized defense counsel’s conduct in front of the jury, and thereby deprived him of a fair trial. We disagree. The record clearly indicates that the court’s actions were provoked by defense counsel’s persistent misconduct in disregarding the court’s evidentiary rulings, and in arguing with the court over its rulings. Where a defense counsel engages in tactics which are "designed to disrupt and to infuriate” the court, the "defendant may not, absent other circumstances, successfully allege he was deprived of a fair trial” *(People v Gonzalez,*38 NY2d 208, 210; *People v Cuba,*154 AD2d 703; *see also, People v Schneider,*100 AD2d 733).

We have examined the defendant’s other claims, including those raised in his supplemental *pro se*brief, and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review, harmless beyond a reasonable doubt or without merit *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230; *People v Reynolds,*132 AD2d 632; *see also, People v Melendez,*55 NY2d 445; *People v Yut Wai Tom,*53 NY2d 44, 57; *People v Jemmott,*144 AD2d 694; *People*
      *745
      *v Johnson,*130 AD2d 766; *People v MacCall,*122 AD2d 79). Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.