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

September 17, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-6350

Diebold Nixdorf Incorporated: 

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/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September.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
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-2018-0025-7159

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
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5357 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5357

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the deduction 
   for certain expenses of elementary and secondary school teachers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 8, 2023

  Mr. Casten (for himself and Mr. Burchett) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the deduction 
   for certain expenses of elementary and secondary school teachers.

    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 ``Educators Expense Deduction 
Modernization Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN DEDUCTION FOR CERTAIN EXPENSES OF ELEMENTARY AND 
              SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.

    (a) In General.--Section 62(a)(2)(D) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 is amended--
            (1) by striking ``elementary and secondary school 
        teachers'' in the heading and inserting ``eligible educators'', 
        and
            (2) by striking ``$250'' and inserting ``$1,000''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 62(d)(3) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
            (1) by striking ``2015'' and inserting ``2023'',
            (2) by striking ``$250'' and inserting ``$1,000'', and
            (3) by striking ``calendar year 2014'' and inserting 
        ``calendar year 2022''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply with respect to taxable years beginning December 31, 2022.
                                 <all>
```
#### Douglas H. Casement et al., Appellants, v Town of Poughkeepsie et al., Respondents.

In an action, *inter alia,*for a judgment declaring that a resolution of the Town Board of the Town of Poughkeepsie with respect to rental of the excess sewage disposal facilities of the Arlington Sewer District to a private real estate development is ultra vires, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (King, J.), entered February 15, 1989, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, and denied the plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs lack standing *(see, Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning & Appeals,*69 NY2d 406, 413; *Matter of Dairylea Coop. v Walkley,*38 NY2d 6, 9), and that the action is barred by the four-month Statute of Limitations set forth in CPLR 217 *(see, Press v County of Monroe,*50 NY2d 695; *Solnick v Whalen,*49 NY2d 224; *International Paper Co. v Sterling Forest Pollution Control Corp.,*105 AD2d 278; *cf., Stettine v County of Suffolk,*105 AD2d 109).

In view of our determination the plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are rendered academic. Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

August 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6631

Alo 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 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
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         In connection with the  Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
Nascent Wine Company, Inc. for the period ended September 30, 2008,
we, Sandro Piancone and Peter V. White, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer, respectively . hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to our knowledge:

                    (1) such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

                    (2) the information contained in such Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q , fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of Nascent Wine Company, Inc.

/s/ Sandro Piancone
-------------------------------------
Sandro Piancone
Chief Executive Officer
November 14, 2008

/s/ Peter V. White
-------------------------------------
Peter V. White
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
November 14, 2008
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



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

The undersigned, Donald Ceci, President & Chief Executive Officer of Power Air Corporation, and Alan Campbell, the Secretary, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of Power Air Corporation, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge, the Report on Form 10-QSB of Power Air Corporation, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008, 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 Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Power Air Corporation.

Date:     August 14, 2008.

| | "Donald Ceci"Donald Ceci
President, Chief Executive Officer,                                               
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |                                                                                                            
| | "Alan Campbell"Alan Campbell
Secretary, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
| |                                                                                                            



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Power Air Corporation and will be retained by Power Air Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
Case No. 5D 2 3

- 713 LT Case No. 2019

- 102854

- CFDL

_____________________________
B ERNARD L EONARD T HOMAS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County

. Leah R. Case
, Judge

.
Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Andrew Mich, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

No Appearance for Appellee.

February 13, 202 4

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
J AY , S OUD , and M AC I VER , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Forrest ROUDEBUSH, Appellant.

No. WD 52095.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Submitted Sept. 4, 1996.

Decided Nov. 19, 1996.

Kevin L. Jamison, Kansas City, for appellant.

Wayne M. Elliott, Prosecuting Attorney, Clinton County, Plattsburg, for respondent.

Before SPINDEN, P.J., and SMART and EDWIN H. SMITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Forrest Roudebush appeals his conviction of guilt- of assault in the third degree (§ 565.070, RSMo 1994), for which he was sentenced to 10 days in jail.

Roudebush challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. After careful review of the evidence, this court determines that there was sufficient evidence from which the trial court could find Roudebush guilty.

The judgment is affirmed. The decision is without precedential value. A memorandum has been furnished to the parties as to the reasons for the decision.

Rule 30.25(b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<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>                                          13,886
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,023
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         512,354
<DEPRECIATION>                                  58,054
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 502,212
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        199,668
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           124
<OTHER-SE>                                     185,216
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   502,212
<SALES>                                         91,356
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                91,356
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   59,996
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,892
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,818
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,461
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,461
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (607)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,854
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $1.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $1.73


</TABLE>
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Suggs WILLIS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 57345.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

March 26, 1991.

Henry B. Robertson, Loyce Hamilton, Asst. Public Defenders, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Geoffrey W. Prekshot, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his conviction by a jury of tampering in the first degree, § 569.080.1(2), RSMo 1986. We affirm.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only which sets forth the facts and the reasons for our order affirming the judgment in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).
#### Rufus YOUNG, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 68821.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

June 18, 1996.

Dave Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Kurt V. Schaefer, Asst. Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment. Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
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-2018-0025-7144

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
* 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. 98-40258

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TIMOTHY HORACE, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:97--CR-105-1

- - - - - - - - - -

November 11, 1998

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

PER CURIAM:*

Timothy Horace, Jr. argues that the district court erred in

enhancing his offense level by seven levels based on his

codefendant’s discharge of a firearm during the commission of the

offense. He further argues that the district court erred in

increasing his offense level based on the victim suffering a

serious bodily injury within the meaning of U.S.S.G. 
No. 98-40258

-2-

§ 2B3.1(b)(3)(B). Horace also argues that the district court

erred in refusing to reduce his offense level by two levels for

the acceptance of responsibility.

We have reviewed the record including the presentence report

and have determined that the district court did not clearly err

in its factual findings and did not misapply the Sentencing

Guidelines in sentencing Horace. 

There was reliable evidence in the presentence report (PSR)

that was adopted by the district court revealing that Horace

along with his coconspirators planned to discharge the weapon to

frighten the victim. There was also reliable evidence that

showed that the discharge of the weapon was reasonably

foreseeable to Horace. The district court did not err in making

the seven-level adjustment under § 2B3.1(b)(2)(A). See

§ 1B1.3(a)(1)(A), (B); United States v. Burton, 126 F.3d 666,

678-79 (5th Cir. 1997).

There was also reliable evidence that the victim sustained a

severe injury which caused him extreme pain and required minor

surgery to correct. Therefore, the district court did not err in

increasing Horace’s offense level based on the victim’s

sustaining a serious bodily injury. See § 1B1.1, comment. (n.1

(j)); United States v. Price, 149 F.3d 352, 354 (5th Cir. 1998).

Lastly, the district court did not err in denying Horace a

downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility because

Horace failed to truthfully admit in a timely manner his conduct

which occurred during the offense. See § 3E1.1, comment.
No. 98-40258

-3-

(n.1(h)); United States v. Diaz, 39 F.3d 568, 572 (5th Cir.

1994).

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 82 (Friday, April 26, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 18649]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10304]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY


Meeting of the Advisory Board for Cuba Broadcasting

    The Advisory Board for Cuba Broadcasting will conduct a meeting at 
the Doral Golf Resort and Spa, 4400 NW 87th Avenue, Miami, Florida, on 
Friday, April 26, 1996, at 8:30 a.m.
    The intended agenda is listed below.

Advisory Board for Cuba Broadcasting Meeting

Friday, April 26, 1996

Agenda

Part One--Closed to the Public

Technical Operations Update
    A. Radio Marti
    B. T.V. Marti

Part Two--Open to the public

I. Technical Operations Update
    A. Watts and Frequencies
II. Update on Radio and T.V. Marti
III. Relocation Update
    A. Card Sound Road Site
IV. Inspector General USIA Update
V. Focus Group Report
VI. Legislative Report
VII. International Broadcasting Bureau
    A. Firewall Issue
VIII. Old Business
IX. New Business
X. Adjournment

    Members of the public interested in attending the open portion of 
the meeting should contact Ms. Angela R. Washington, at the Advisory 
Board Office. Ms. Washington can be reached at (202) 401-2178.

Determination To Close a Portion of the Advisory Board Meeting of April 
26, 1996

    Based on information provided to me by the Advisory Board for Cuba 
Broadcasting, I hereby determine that the 8:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. 
portion of this meeting should be closed to the public.
    The Advisory Board has requested that part one of the April 26, 
1996, meeting be closed to the public. Part one will involve 
information the premature disclosure of which would likely frustrate 
implementation of a proposed Agency action. Closing such deliberations 
to the public is justified by the Government in the Sunshine Act under 
5 U.S.C. 522b(c)(9)(B).
    Part one of the agenda consists of a discussion of technical 
matters, which include TV Marti transmissions, frequencies, alternate 
channels and new technologies for Radio Marti.

    Dated: April 22, 1996.
Joseph Duffey,
Director, United States Information Agency.
[FR Doc. 96-10304 Filed 4-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8230-02-M