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

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-7479

General Motors:

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 this particular product is available 

only from China.

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
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-2018-0025-7038

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
#### Sandra WALTERS, Appellant, v. Ben PAPERMASTER, Respondent.

No. WD 42092.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 27, 1990.

Robert B. Reeser, Jr., Sedalia, for appellant.

William S. Ohlemeyer, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before GAITAN, P.J., and CLARK and MANFORD, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff/appellant, Sandra Walters, appeals a verdict in favor of defendant/respondent Ben Papermaster. She had sought damages for injuries received in a motor vehicle collision.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LAUREN PAULSON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant / Cross- 

 Apellee,

 v.

MATT ARBAUGH; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees / Cross- 

 Apellants.

 And

AMY MITCHELL,

 Defendant.

Nos. 13-35077

13-35407

D.C. No. 3:12-mc-00196-MO

MEMORANDUM*

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 22, 2015** 

Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

FILED

JUL 09 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Lauren Paulson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment

in his action alleging a conspiracy to deprive him of property. Matt Arbaugh and

Craig Russillo cross-appeal from the district court’s order granting Paulson’s

motion to reopen the time to appeal. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Paulson failed to appeal within 30 days of December 21, 2012, the date on

which the district court’s judgment was entered, as required by Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A). The district court granted Paulson’s motion to

reopen the time to appeal the judgment, but Paulson did not show that he received

notice of the judgment more than 21 days after entry of the judgment as required

by Rule 4(a)(6). See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)(A); Arai v. Am. Bryce Ranches Inc.,

316 F.3d 1066, 1069-70 (9th Cir. 2003) (ruling on a Rule 4(a)(6) motion reviewed

for abuse of discretion); Nunley v. City of Los Angeles, 52 F.3d 792, 795 (9th Cir.

1995) (the moving party has the burden to demonstrate non-receipt). Accordingly,

Paulson’s notice of appeal was untimely and we lack jurisdiction. See

Stephanie-Cardona LLC v. Smith’s Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc., 476 F.3d 701, 703

(9th Cir. 2007) (“A timely notice of appeal is a non-waivable jurisdictional

requirement.”).

2 13-35077 & 13-35407
Because we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, we do not consider Paulson’s

arguments on appeal addressing the underlying merits or his pending motions.

DISMISSED.

3 13-35077 & 13-35407
---

Exhibit 32.1

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

The undersigned, Ajay Batheja, the Chief Executive Officer of
KRANEM CORPORATION (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

1. The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2012 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this
statement this 23rd day of August, 2012.

| | /s/ Ajay
      Batheja       
| | -----------------------------
| | Ajay Batheja                 
| | Chief Executive Officer      
| | (Principal Executive Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Kranem Corporation and will be retained by Kranem
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.

The forgoing statement is being furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed
for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company,
whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.

---
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5417 

To require the denial of admission to the United States for individuals 

subject to sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13876, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 12, 2023 

Ms. TENNEY (for herself and Ms. SALAZAR) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To require the denial of admission to the United States 

for individuals subject to sanctions pursuant to Executive 

Order 13876, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Strengthening Entry 

5 Visa Enforcement and Restrictions Act’’ or the ‘‘SEVER 

6 Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5417 IH

1 SEC. 2. DENIAL OF VISAS TO CERTAIN REPRESENTATIVES 

2 TO UNITED NATIONS. 

3 Section 407(a)(1) of the Foreign Relations Author4 ization Act, Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (Public Law 

5 101–246; 8 U.S.C. 1102 note) is amended by striking ‘‘; 

6 and’’ and inserting ‘‘, or is subject to sanctions pursuant 

7 to Executive Order 13876 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note; relating 

8 to imposing sanctions with respect to Iran), as in effect 

9 on September 15, 2022; and’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
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-2018-0025-6801

CRRC MA Corporation:

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 granting the request would undermine the objective of the Section 

301 investigation.

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19D0146. LITRINA CHINNESE MOURA v. ADRIANE LAMAR et al.

We dismissed this application as untimely because it appeared that Litrina

Chinnese Moura sought to appeal a trial court order entered approximately five

months before the application was filed. On motion for reconsideration, however,

Moura shows that the order she wishes to appeal was entered within 30 days of the

application. Accordingly, we hereby GRANT the motion for reconsideration and

VACATE our previous order dismissing the application, which is hereby

REINSTATED. 

Upon consideration of the merits of the application for discretionary appeal,

we hereby GRANT the application. Moura shall have ten days from the date of this

order to file a notice of appeal in the trial court. The clerk of the trial court is directed

to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

January 25, 2019

01/25/2019
EXHIBIT 31: Rule 13a-14(a) Certification  I, Zhenjiang Yue, certify that:  1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of China Aoxing Pharmaceutical Company, Inc.;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this  report;  3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this  report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this  report;  4.  The small business issuers other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the small business issuer and have:  a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,  to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this  report is being prepared;  b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal controls over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and  5.  The small business issuers other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to  adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal controls over financial reporting.  Date: May 15, 2007 /s/ Zhenjiang Yue Zhenjiang Yue, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT
31.1




CERTIFICATION
OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 302


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I,
Richard Man Fai LEE, certify that:




1. 
         I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form
10-Q/A for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 of China Premium Lifestyle
Enterprise, Inc.




2. 
         Based on my knowledge, this report does not
contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this report.




3. 
         Based on my knowledge, the financial
statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly
present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations
and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report.




4. 
         The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)
and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:




a. 
         designed such disclosure controls and
procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
report is being prepared;




b. 
         evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,
as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and




c. 
         disclosed in this report any change in the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over
financial reporting.




5. 
         The registrant’s other certifying officer(s)
and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control
over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee
of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):




a. 
         all significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and




b. 
         any fraud, whether or not material, that
involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.





Date:
      May 28, 2010/s/  Richard Man Fai
    LEEName:
      Richard Man Fai LEE
                  Its:
      Chief Executive Officer and
Director
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Earl Oliver COPLIN, Defendant/Appellant. Earl Oliver COPLIN, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Nos. 65031, 66936.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Oct. 3, 1995.

*331David Simpson, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

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

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his convictions following a bench trial for one count of first degree burglary (Count I), § 569.160, RSMo 1986, four counts of armed criminal action (Counts II, IV, VI, and X), § 571.015.1, RSMo 1986, two counts of felonious restraint (Counts III and V), § 565.120, RSMo 1986, two counts of unlawful use of a weapon (Counts VII and VIII), § 571.030.1(3), RSMo 1986, and one count of first degree assault (Count IX), § 565.050, RSMo 1986. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit; the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Registrant's  unaudited interim financial statements the year ended December 31,
2000  and  is  qualified  in  its  entirety  by  reference  to  those  financial
statements.
</LEGEND> <CIK> 0000895993
<NAME> RIDGEWOOD ELECTRIC POWER TRUST II

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                          89,829
<SECURITIES>                                10,751,582<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               100,401
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,135,310
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          312,737<F2>
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,822,573<F3>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,135,310
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               712,630
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               117,695
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                594,935
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            594,935
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   594,935
<EPS-BASIC>                                      2,528
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    2,528

<FN>
<F1>Investments in power project partnerships.
<F2>Includes $6,174 due to affiliates.
<F3>Represents Investor Shares of beneficial interest
in Trust with capital accounts of $11,905,591 less
managing shareholder's accumulated deficit of $83,018.
</FN>


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
CONTACT:          Raoul J. Witteveen
                           (212) 916-3261


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE



            INTERPOOL, INC. ANNOUNCES SALE OF 6-5/8% NOTES DUE 2003

PRINCETON, NJ, February 19, 1998 - Interpool, Inc. (NYSE: IPX) announced today
that it has entered into an agreement to sell $100 million aggregate principal
amount of 6-5/8% Notes Due 2003. The transaction is expected to close on
February 24, 1998. The Notes are being sold in a private transaction pursuant
to Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933.

Interpool expects to use the net proceeds from the issuance of the Notes,
estimated at approximately $99 million, to repay all outstanding borrowings
under its revolving credit agreement and for other general corporate purposes,
including, but not limited to, the purchase of equipment, acquisition and/or
working capital.

Interpool, originally founded in 1968, is one of the world's leading lessors
of cargo containers used in international trade and is the second largest
lessor of intermodal container chassis in the United States. The Company
leases its containers and chassis to over 200 customers, including nearly all
of the world's 20 largest international container shipping lines.

The Notes will not be registered under the Securities Act of 1933 and may not
be offered or sold in the United States or to any U.S. person absent
registration or an applicable exemption from registration requirements.


                                     # # #