alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6671
DWAYNE DELESTON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:02-cv-3895-1-DCN) Submitted: February 28, 2008 Decided: March 3, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dwayne Deleston, Appellant Pro Se. Miller Williams Shealy, Jr., UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, John Charles Duane, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Dwayne Deleston appeals the district court’s orders denying his motions for an evidentiary hearing, for summary judgment and to compel. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Deleston v. United States , No. 2:02-cv-3895-1- DCN (D.S.C. April 18, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 73 (Monday, April 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19254]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9540]



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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5191-8]

42 U.S.C. Section 122(h)


Proposed Administrative Agreement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Proposed settlement.

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

SUMMARY: USEPA is proposing to settle a claim under Section 107 of 
CERCLA for response costs incurred during removal activities at the 
Union Scrap Iron and Metal (Union Scrap III) site in Minneapolis, MN. 
Respondents have agreed to reimburse USEPA in the amount of $936,000. 
USEPA today is proposing to approve this settlement offer because it 
reimburses USEPA, in part, for costs incurred during USEPA's removal 
action.

DATES: Comments on this proposed settlement must be received on or 
before May 17, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the proposed settlement are available at the 
following address for review: (It is recommended that you telephone Ms. 
Cheryl Allen at (312) 353-6196 before visiting the Region V Office).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, Office of Superfund, 
Removal and Enforcement Response Branch, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, 
Illinois 60604

    Comments on this proposed settlement should be addressed to: 
(Please submit an original and three copies, if possible)

Cheryl Allen, Community Relations Coordinator, Office of Public 
Affairs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, 77 W. Jackson 
Boulevard (P-19J), Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-6196.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cheryl Allen, Office of Public Affairs, at (312) 353-6196.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Union Scrap III site, a scrap yard 
contaminated with lead and polychloronated biphenyls (PCBs), is not on 
the National Priorities List. In response to a request from the State 
of Minnesota, USEPA investigated the Union Scrap III site and undertook 
response actions designed to minimize the immediate threat, test the 
materials involved and properly dispose of the hazardous waste.
    Respondents are a variety of individuals and corporate entities 
that generated hazardous substances at the Site in the form of lead 
batteries, lead contaminated scrap and polychloronated biphenyls (PCBs) 
from metal and oil-based sources. A 30-day period, beginning on the 
date of publication, is open pursuant to section 122(i) of CERCLA for 
comments on the proposed settlement.
    Comments should be sent to Ms. Cheryl Allen of the Office of Public 
Affairs (P-19J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, 77 W. 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Thomas P. Turner,
Assistant Regional Counsel, Environmental Protection Agency.
[FR Doc. 95-9540 Filed 4-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 41130 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
CANDELARIO LUCIO

- GARZA, also known as Carlos Garza , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:15

- CR

- 330

- 1

Before JONES, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Candelario Lucio

Garza has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Lu cio

- Garza h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 21 , 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-41130 Document: 00513558397 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2016No. 15

- 41130

2 issue for appellate review. Accordingly, couns el’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 15-41130 Document: 00513558397 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2016
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 Vystar Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the Quarter Ended June 30, 2013 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, William R. Doyle, Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Linda S. Hammock, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each do 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 the
best of our knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|/s/ William R. Doyle                            | 
|----------------------------------------------- | 
|William R. Doyle                               
|Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
|August 30, 2013                                
|                                                | 
|/s/ W. Dean Waters                              | 
|W. Dean Waters                                 
|Chief Financial Officer                        
|August 30, 2013                                



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



The foregoing certification is being furnished
solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and 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 Vystar Corporation,
whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mark Scott, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Mackston, J.), rendered June 12, 1987, convicting him of assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant argues that the prosecution failed to prove that the arresting officer suffered a physical injury as defined in Penal Law § 10.00 (9), requiring reversal of his judgment of conviction for assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [3]). We disagree. At the trial, the police officer testified that as a result of the defendant kicking him in the head, he saw spots and felt very intense pain. The injury suffered in the attack prompted him to seek medical treatment at a local hospital where X rays were taken and where he had several eye examinations. His head was tender to the touch and he took medication for several days to relieve the pain. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt. The jury could reasonably infer from the officer’s testimony that the pain he suffered was substantial *(see, People v Lundquist,*151 AD2d 505).

The defendant’s contention that the trial court improperly conducted the trial is belied by the record *(see, People v De Jesus,*42 NY2d 519; *People v Vargas,*150 AD2d 513). The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting *480an adjournment *(see, People v Tineo,*64 NY2d 531; *People v Vargas,*150 AD2d 513, *supra).*In addition, contrary to the defendant’s contention, in questioning one of the People’s witnesses, the court properly intervened to clarify issues *(see, People v Nevarez,*141 AD2d 861). In any event, this questioning did not unfairly prejudice the defendant since upon his motion it was stricken from the record. Nor did the court act improperly in allowing the prosecution to reopen its direct case. The determination to reopen a case during trial for further testimony lies within the reasonable discretion of the trial court *(see, People v Washington,*71 NY2d 916; *People v Ventura,*35 NY2d 654).

The defendant’s contention that the court unfairly marshaled the evidence is without merit. A review of the court’s charge reveals that the court presented the evidence to the jury in an evenhanded manner, and properly instructed the jury that its recollection of the evidence controlled *(see, People v Campbell,*151 AD2d 591; *People v Cutwright,*149 AD2d 608).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contention and find that it does not require reversal. Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.
PUBLIC VERSION
$[*********] [******]

$[*********]

INPUT

20.0

$[*********]

[******]

[******]

0.05

PUBLIC VERSION
Consistent with USTR's Section 301 notice, OMRON Management Center of America, Inc. requests

confidential treatment for the information designated as business confidential in this submission. Such

information consists of information that would not customarily be released to the public, including

business or trade secrets regarding production costs and processes, data on sales, product characteristics

customers, destinations, and other product, sales, and cost-related business secrets. Business confidential

information has been indicated herein by enclosing it in single brackets (“[ ]”). A public version of these

comments is also being filed with all confidential information removed.

OMRON in the US is the only designer of this product and only supplier of this component.

CASE,UPPER 4 BTN is a molded plastic switch case, and is used only for automotive purposes to house

switches in a key fob, of which is an OEM-specified dimension. It is only used for further assembly of

components which go into domestic automobile production, which is specified by auto manufacturer.

This product is not a target of the US Administration's 301 investigation regarding Intellectual Property

concerns. This is not a concern to IP transfer and impressment. This product contains no IP of interest

related to autonomous vehicle production.

The tariff action ultimately poses a risk of significant damage to OMRON, the domestic automobile

industry, and ultimately the US consumer as a increase in price. Like in the case of similar approvals for

vehicle components at the HTS level, OMRON views this product in the same manner. Immediate

movement of production to a US manufacturer or another country would pose significant re-tooling

costs, significant amounts of time, and approvals pertaining to consumer automobile safety standards are

costly and would take a significant amount of time to obtain.

OMRON Management Center of America, Inc. believes that CBP can easily exclude the CASE,UPPER

4 BTN in question based solely on the product description. The following are draft CBP exclusion

instructions:

"CASE,UPPER 4 BTN "pear-shaped" raised edge flat molding with five button holes hollowed out; two

arranged next two each other at the top and two arranged on top of each other below, and a fifth hollow

hole at the bottom "Plastic case for REMOTE FUNCTION ACTUATOR - made of resin - ABS+PC"

Dimensions 42m x57.23mm x8.12mm."

This information will be contained on the invoice from the supplier.

PUBLIC VERSION
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of Registrant

|SUBSIDIARY                                         |  | JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION 
|-------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------
|Cymer B.V.                                         |  | the Netherlands               
|Cymer Japan, Inc.                                  |  | Japan                         
|Cymer Korea, Inc.                                  |  | Korea                         
|Cymer Singapore Pte. Ltd.                          |  | Singapore                     
|Cymer Southeast Asia, Ltd.                         |  | Taiwan                        
|Cymer Semiconductor Equipment (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. |  | the People's Republic of China
|TCZ Pte. Ltd.                                      |  | Singapore                     

---



QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4196 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4196

  To amend the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama and Coushatta Indian 
 Tribes of Texas Restoration Act to restore an opportunity for Tribal 
 economic development on terms that are equal and fair, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 12, 2022

  Mr. Heinrich (for himself and Mr. Tester) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama and Coushatta Indian 
 Tribes of Texas Restoration Act to restore an opportunity for Tribal 
 economic development on terms that are equal and fair, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama-
Coushatta Tribes of Texas Equal and Fair Opportunity Act''.

SEC. 2. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

    The Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama and Coushatta Indian Tribes 
of Texas Restoration Act (Public Law 100-89; 101 Stat. 666) is amended 
by adding at the end the following:

                   ``TITLE III--RULE OF CONSTRUCTION

``SEC. 301. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

    ``Nothing in this Act precludes or limits the applicability of the 
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.).''.
                                 <all>
```
Order issued September 19, 2012 

In The 

(fond uf Apprats 

J1ifttElistrirt uf Jixas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01137-CV 

IN RE TROY LEE PERKINS, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 282nd Criminal District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause Nos. F07-71990-S 

ORDER 

Before Justices Bridges, Lang, and Fillmore 

The Court has before it relator's September 4, 2012 letter to this Court, which we construe 

as a motion for rehearing. This Court has no jurisdiction over habeas corpus proceedings in which 

the relator seeks relief from a felony judgment after final conviction. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. 

ANN. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2011). Accordingly, we DENY the motion for relnyaring. 

ROBERT M. FILLMORE 

JUSTICE
Schedule II
<TABLE>
                                   CONRAIL INC.
                          VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
                          FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,

                                   (In Millions)
<CAPTION>
                                         Additions
                                    -------------------
                        Balance at  Charged to  Charged                 Balance
                        Beginning   Costs and   to Other                At End
Description              of Period   Expenses   Accounts  Deductions   of Period
-----------             ----------  ----------  --------  ----------   ---------
<S>                        <C>          <C>        <C>         <C>         <C>
                                                   (1)


1993
Casualty reserves
     Current              $110                                $17 (2)      $ 93
     Noncurrent            153         $122       $11         154 (3)       132

Allowance for
disposition of property
and equipment (4)          277                                 21           256

1994
Casualty reserves
     Current                93                                (10) (2)      103
     Noncurrent            132          172        12         104  (3)      212

Allowance for
disposition of property
and equipment (4)          256                                 15           241

1995
Casualty reserves
     Current               103                      3          (4) (2)      110
     Noncurrent            212          171        14         180  (3)      217

Allowance for
disposition of property
and equipment (4)(5)       241          261                    63           439

<FN>
(1) Includes charges to property accounts in connection with construction
     projects and the recording of  receivables from third parties.

(2) Includes net transfers from noncurrent.

(3) Transfers to current.

(4) Deductions of $21 million, $15 million and $63 million in 1993, 1994,
     and 1995 respectively, represent net losses on asset dispositions.

(5) In 1995, the Company recorded an asset disposition charge, which resulted
     from a review of the Company's route system and other operating assets to
     determine those that no longer effectively and economically support
     current and expected operations.  The Company identified and has
     committed to sell 1,800 miles of rail lines that are expected to provide
     proceeds substantially less than net book value.  In addition, other
     assets, principally yards and side tracks, identified for disposition
     have been written down to estimated net realizable value.
</FN>
</TABLE>


                                    S-1
<PAGE>
**EXHIBIT 32.01**

**Section 1350 Certification**

In connection with thisquarterly report of ML Winton FuturesAccess LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (this “Report”), I, Benjamin C. Weston, ChiefExecutive Officer and Presidentof Merrill Lynch Alternative Investments LLC, the manager of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. This Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2. The informationcontained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date:   May 15, 2007             |                   |   |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|--------|
|                                  |                   |
| By                                    | /s/ BENJAMIN C. WESTON |   |
| Benjamin C. Weston                    |
| Chief Executive Officer and President |
| (Principal Executive Officer)         |
|                                       |                        |        |  |

 

----
EXHIBIT
32.1


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











In
connection with the Annual Report of GeoGlobal Resources Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jean Paul Roy, Chief
Executive 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, to the best of 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 results of operations of the Company
      for the periods presented.

















/s/ Jean
Paul Roy


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








Jean Paul
Roy


President
and Chief Executive Officer


June 4,
2008
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-7372

Carrier 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 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