alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10222

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DAVID EARL KATES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:97-CR-42

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:*

David Earl Kates, federal prisoner # 30428-077, is an abusive litigant 

and has been sanctioned on several occasions. On February 24, 2015, Kates 

submitted a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) seeking a reduction in his 

sentence. In accordance with a prior sanction order, this pleading was stricken 

without a ruling from the district court. We review such actions for an abuse 

of discretion. Gelabert v. Lynaugh, 894 F.2d 746, 747-48 (5th Cir. 1990).

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 27, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10222 Document: 00513172063 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/27/2015
No. 15-10222

2

Kates has filed a brief arguing the merits of his request for a sentence 

reduction, but he has not addressed the district court’s enforcement of the 

sanction order. Accordingly, he has abandoned the threshold issue for appeal. 

See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th 

Cir. 1987); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). As Kates’s 

appeal does not present a legal issue arguable on its merits, it is frivolous. See 

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).

The appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-10222 Document: 00513172063 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/27/2015
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-2018-0025-7308

Nissan North 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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


         In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
Nascent Wine Company, Inc. for the sic months ended June 30, 2008, I, Peter
V. White, Chief Financial Officer of Nascent Wine Company, Inc. hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

                    (1) such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the six months
ended June 30, 2008, 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 such Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the six months ended June 30, 2008, fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Nascent
Wine Company, Inc.



/s/ Peter V. White
-------------------------------------
Peter V. White
Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2008
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Liang Qiao, Chief Executive Officer of Bio-Bridge Science, Inc., (the
"Company"), certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Bio-Bridge Science,
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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

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: November 13, 2006

                            /s/ Dr. Liang Qiao
                            ------------------------------
                            By: Dr. Liang Qiao
                            Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**

 

This Certificate is being delivered pursuant to the requirements of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedures) of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

The undersigned, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Behringer Harvard Opportunity REIT I, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies to his knowledge:

 

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company (the “Report”), which accompanies this Certificate, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

Dated this 16th day of May, 2011.

 

 
|   | /s/   Robert S. Aisner                      |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|
|   | Robert   S. Aisner, Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### Sarah L. WIECZOREK, Petitioner/Appellant, v. John Joseph WIECZOREK, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 65361.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Nov. 8, 1994.

Elizabeth W. Swann, Swann & Hendrix, O’Fallon, for appellant.

William W. Hollander, Wion & Hollander, P.C., Clayton, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Mother appeals that portion of the dissolution decree awarding primary custody of the parties’ three year old son to father. We affirm. The judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence and is not *231against the weight of the evidence, and 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 this order af-finning the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT 32



<PAGE>



      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Learningwire.com (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Stephen K. Smith, the
President and Chief Executive Officer and Michael Grove the Principal Financial
and Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of their 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.


                                          KRANEM CORPORATION
                                          d/b/a
                                          LEARNINGWIRE.COM

August 22, 2005                           By: /s/ Stephen K. Smith
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Stephen K. Smith, President and
                                              Chief Executive Officer


August 24, 2005                           By: /s/ Michael Grove
                                              -------------------------------
                                              Michael Grove, Principal Financial
                                              and Accounting Officer
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-2018-0025-7210

Clark Material Handling 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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5517

Tianhai Electric North 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
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-2018-0025-6957

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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 77 (Friday, April 21, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19917]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9924]



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

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA-1045-DR]


South Dakota; Amendment to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
State of South Dakota, (FEMA-1045-DR), dated March 14, 1995, and 
related determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 13, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Pauline C. Campbell, Response and Recovery Directorate, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3606.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster for the State 
of South Dakota dated March 14, 1995, is hereby amended to include the 
following area among those areas determined to have been adversely 
affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President 
in his declaration of March 14, 1995:

    Brule County for Public Assistance.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.516, Disaster 
Assistance.)
Richard W. Krimm,
Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate.
[FR Doc. 95-9924 Filed 4-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-M
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

SAMSON MARTIN
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 15

- 1625

[ February 3, 2016 ]

Appeal of order s denying rule 3.850 and 3.800 (a) motion s from the

Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Lisa

M. Porter , Judge; L.T. Case No. 02

- 003228 CF10B

.

Samson Martin, Mayo, pro se.

No brief required for appellee.

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING

P ER C URIAM

.

We grant in part the appellant’s motion for rehearing, but only to clarify

that the defendant’s appeal is from the denial of both his Florida Rule of

Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion and his Florida Rule of Criminal

Pro c edure 3.800(a) motion. We otherwise deny the appellan t’s motion for rehearing in all other respects, and thereby maintain our affirmance of the defendant’s appeal on the merits. See Martinez v. State , 169 So. 3 d 170 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).

Affirmed.

C IKLIN
, C.J., M AY and G ERBER
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Reggie Fuller, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), rendered August 22, 1989, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Fiber, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
#### James JOHNSON, a/k/a Sherman Carter, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.

No. 56012.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Aug. 15, 1989.

*584Thomas R. Motley, Public Defender, Hannibal, for movant-appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Ronald L. Jurgeson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent-respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and 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 our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT 21.1

 

| **SUBSIDIARIES          OF FINLAY FINE JEWELRY CORPORATION** |   | **JURISDICTION** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------|
|                                                         |   |             |
| Finlay Jewelry, Inc.                                         |   | Delaware         |
| Finlay Merchandising & Buying, Inc.                      |   | Delaware         |
| Sonab Holdings, Inc.                                         |   | Delaware         |
| Sonab International, Inc.                                    |   | Delaware         |
| eFinlay, Inc.                                                |   | Delaware         |
| Carlyle & Co. Jewelers                                   |   | Delaware         |
| Park Promenade LLC                                           |   | Florida          |
| L. Congress Inc.                                             |   | Florida          |

 

 

----
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-2018-0025-6066

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