alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 73 (Monday, April 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19208-19209]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9406]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 19209]]

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[Order No. 737]


Peavey Electronics Corp.; AL

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) adopts the following Order:

Grant of Authority for Subzone Status, Peavey Electronics 
Corporation (Electronic Audio and Acoustical Products), Foley, 
Alabama

    Whereas, by an Act of Congress approved June 18, 1934, an Act ``To 
provide for the establishment . . . of foreign-trade zones in ports of 
entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, 
and for other purposes,'' as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u) (the Act), the 
Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) is authorized to grant to 
qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade 
zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry;
    Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR Part 400) provide for the 
establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities 
cannot serve the specific use involved;
     Whereas, an application from the City of Mobile, Alabama, grantee 
of Foreign-Trade Zone 82, for authority to establish special-purpose 
subzone status at the electronic audio and acoustical products 
manufacturing plant of the Peavey Electronics Corporation in Foley, 
Alabama, was filed by the Board on March 3, 1994, and notice inviting 
public comment was given in the Federal Register (FTZ Docket 8-94, 59 
FR 12892, 3-18-94); and,
    Whereas, the Board has found that the requirements of the FTZ Act 
and Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the 
application is in the public interest;
    Now, Therefore, the Board hereby authorizes the establishment of a 
subzone (Subzone 82C) at the Peavey Electronics Corporation plant in 
Foley, Alabama, at the location described in the application, subject 
to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Sec. 400.28.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 10th day of April 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
    Attest:
John J. Da Ponte, Jr.,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-9406 Filed 4-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6811

Otis Elevator Co:

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

_5-30-2019.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
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5272 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5272

   To amend title 10, United States Code, to modify the requirements 
 relating to truthful cost or pricing data submissions, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            August 25, 2023

 Mr. Deluzio introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 10, United States Code, to modify the requirements 
 relating to truthful cost or pricing data submissions, 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. MODIFICATION TO TRUTHFUL COST OR PRICING DATA SUBMISSIONS.

    Section 3705(b)(2)(B) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in the second sentence, by inserting ``and shall 
        identify such offerors that incur a delay greater than 200 days 
        in submitting such cost or pricing data'' after ``should-cost 
        analysis''; and
            (2) by amending the third sentence to read as follows: 
        ``The Secretary of Defense shall include a public notation on 
        such offerors in the system used by the Federal Government to 
        monitor or record contractor integrity and performance.''.
                                 <all>
```
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-50708

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BYRON LAMONTE MCCUTCHEON,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-95-CA-228

- - - - - - - - - -

February 23, 1998

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Byron Lamonte McCutcheon, federal prisoner # 60246-080,

requests permission to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal

from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 motion. McCutcheon contends that counsel on direct appeal

provided ineffective assistance by failing to challenge the

district court’s estimate of the drug quantity attributable to

McCutcheon, the district court’s alleged failure to make findings

in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 32, and the district court’s
No. 96-50708

-2-

determination of McCutcheon’s sentence by using crack cocaine

rather than powder cocaine. McCutcheon also contends that the

district court erred in determining that his ineffective

assistance claims were procedurally barred and in dismissing his

§ 2255 motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing.

We have reviewed the record, the district court's thorough

opinion, and McCutcheon’s brief and find no nonfrivolous issues

for appeal. See McCutcheon v. United States, No. W-95-Ca-228

(W.D. Tex. Jul. 2, 1996). McCutcheon abandoned any challenge to

his claim that his conviction was barred by double jeopardy and

to the district court’s determination that his sentencing issues

were procedurally barred by failing to assert and brief the

issues in this court. See Hobbs v. Blackburn, 752 F.2d 1079,

1083 (5th Cir. 1985)(errors not raised and not briefed on appeal

are abandoned).

As an appeal would have no merit, the motion for leave to

proceed IFP is DENIED. See Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586

(5th Cir. 1982). The appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

IFP DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED.
```
**Exhibit 10.3

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE**

DATE:    January 17, 2006

AMOUNT:  $ 50,000.00 (Fifty Thousand Dollars)

CITY:    Ashburn

STATE:   Virginia

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned promises to pay to the order of

Tim Novak of Bradenton, Florida, the sum of $ 50,000.00 plus 8% simple interest
for six months use of funds from date hereof through July 17, 2006.

All money paid is to be in legal currency of the United States of America. Any
unpaid balance may be prepaid at any time without penalty.

In the event the undersigned defaults in any payment beyond 10 days from the
agreed date of payment, the entire remaining balance will earn an interest rate
equal to the maximum allowed by law or 18% calculated from the date of
inception.

This Note is to be governed, interpreted and construed by, through and under the
laws of the State of Virginia.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Note to be executed in its
name on the day and year first above written.

Date:                      January 17, 2006

Maker's Name:     TenthGate Incorporated, a public Delaware Corporation

Maker's Signature:         /s/   L. Joy Putnam   Title: Chief Financial Officer

Maker's Address:  44050 Ashburn Plaza, Suite 195
                  Ashburn, VA  20147
```
EXHIBIT 32




<PAGE>



     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bella Trading Company, Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form  10-QSB/A for the period  ending June 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),  Sara Preston,  the Chief
Executive and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of her knowledge:

     (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 the Company.



November 1, 2006                          By:  /s/ Sara Preston
                                               -------------------------
                                               Sara Preston, Chief Executive
                                               and Principal Financial Officer
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 26, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-6685

Invacare Corp:

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 did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-21-00214-CR

EX PARTE GARY ARTHUR AYERS

Original Proceeding

From the 54th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019-120-C2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Through a form document entitled, “Petition for Relief From a Conviction or 

Sentence By a Person in State Custody,” Gary Arthur Ayers, a prison inmate, wants a 

sentence reduction, a new trial, or a reversal and remand to vacate his sentence. 

Essentially, Ayers is requesting post-conviction relief.1

As an intermediate appellate court in Texas, our jurisdiction is limited. We do not 

have habeas corpus jurisdiction of any request for post-conviction relief in a felony 

1 The form used by Ayers is for a “Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for A Writ of Habeas Corpus.” 

Instruction 8 instructs the applicant to send the form to the “Clerk of the United States District Court.” It 

was mailed to the Clerk of the Tenth Court of Appeals of Texas.
Ex parte Ayers Page 2

proceeding. See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 525 n.8 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see also TEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. arts. 11.05, 11.07; Ex parte Mendenhall, 209 S.W.3d 260, 261 (Tex. App.—

Waco 2006, no pet.). According to Ayers, he was convicted of the felony offense of 

possession of heroin and methamphetamine with an intent to deliver and sentenced to 

30 years in prison. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.112; TEX. PENAL CODE § 12.32(a).

Because we have no jurisdiction, this proceeding is dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Rose,2 and 

Justice Wright3

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed August 31, 2021

Do not publish

[OT06] 

2 The Honorable Jeff Rose, Former Chief Justice of the Third Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment of the 

Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV'T CODE §§ 74.003, 75.002, 75.003.

3 The Honorable Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired) of the Eleventh Court of Appeals, sitting by 

assignment of the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV'T CODE §§ 74.003, 75.002, 75.003.
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-2018-0025-7086

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
#### Ex parte Darren McGavin ISRAEL.

No. 06-96-00042-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Texarkana.

Submitted Oct. 23, 1996.

Decided Oct. 23, 1996.

*14R. Kent Phillips, Longview, for appellant.

C. Patrice Savage, Assistant District Attorney, Ebb B. Mobley, Longview, for appel-lee.

Before CORNELIUS, C.J., and GRANT and STARR, JJ.

OPINION

CORNELIUS, Chief Justice.

Darren Israel appeals from the trial court’s denial of relief pursuant to his application for writ of habeas corpus. He contends that the court erred by denying his request for release from incarceration based on his claim of double jeopardy. *See Ex parte Walker,*813 S.W.2d 570, 571 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi 1991, pet. ref'd).

Israel is awaiting trial on a charge of possession of controlled substances with intent to deliver. When he was arrested, the State seized and forfeited certain of his property pursuant to Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 59.01, et seq. (Vernon Supp.1996). Israel filed an application for writ of habeas corpus in which he contended that he was wrongfully held on the criminal charge because the forfeiture of his property constituted punishment for the same offense. The trial court denied relief, and Israel has appealed.

The exact contention raised in this case was addressed by the Court of Criminal Appeals in *Ex parte Fant,*931 S.W.2d 299 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). In that case, the Court applied the rationale and followed the holdings of the United States Supreme Court in *United States v. Ursery,*518 U.S.-, 116 S.Ct. 2135, 135 L.Ed.2d 549 (1996). In *Ursery*the Supreme Court reviewed a similar civil forfeiture statute on a double jeopardy challenge to see if it was civil in nature, and whether it was shown by the clearest evidence to be so punitive in form and effect as to render it criminal punishment.

In *Fant,*the Court applied the *Ursery*guidelines to the Texas forfeiture statutes. The Court reviewed the statutes and their legislative enactment and history and held that the Texas forfeiture statutes under Chapter 59 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were meant by the Legislature to be civil *in rem*proceedings, and that they are not criminal sanctions.

In applying the second factor of *Ursery,*the Court ruled that the Texas forfeiture statutes “have not been shown by the ‘clearest proof to be ‘so punitive in form and effect as to render them criminal.’ ” *Ex parte Fant,*at 307-308. Therefore, they are not criminal sanctions, and double jeopardy does not prohibit a criminal trial when the forfeiture precedes the criminal trial.1

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

STARR, J., not participating.

1

. As in *Fant,*this analysis applies a review under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, because no separate analysis or argument was made under the Texas Constitution.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 73 (Monday, April 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19306]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9391]



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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated February 17, 1995, and published in the Federal 
Register on March 1, 1995, 1994, (60 FR 11115), Organix Inc., 65 
Cummings Park, Woburn, Massachusetts 01801, made application to the 
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk 
manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed 
below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Drug                               Schedule 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370)................................  I         
Morphine (9300).............................................  II        
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No comments or objections have been received. Therefore, pursuant 
to Section 303 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control 
Act of 1970 and Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Sec. 1301.54(e), 
the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, hereby 
orders that the application submitted by the above firm for 
registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled 
substances listed above is granted.

    Dated: April 7, 1995.
Gene R. Haislip,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-9391 Filed 4-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
Exhibit 32.2



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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Universal Capital Management, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ending July 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Theresa Q. Hoffmann, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my knowledge:

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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/ Theresa Q. Hoffmann

Theresa Q. Hoffmann,

Principal Financial Officer

September 19, 2011
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-2018-0025-7000

MAHLE Behr USA, 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 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION 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 Sonoma College, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles
D. Newman, Chairman and President (Principal Executive Officer and Principal
Accounting and Financial Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company.


/s/ Charles D. Newman
----------------------------
Charles D. Newman
Chief Executive Officer
May 22, 2006