alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Frank SANDS, Respondent, v. KESSLER CONTAINERS, LTD., and Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., Appellants.

No. 70375.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Dec. 3, 1996.

Amy E. Offher, Hayes & Balfour, St. Louis, for appellants.

Charles A. Mogab, Mogab & Hughes, St. Louis, for respondent.

*82Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and RHODES RUSSELL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, Kessler Containers, Ltd., and its insurer, Aetna Casualty, appeal the Final Award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (the “Commission”) reversing the order of the Administrative Law Judge and reinstating respondent’s, Frank Sands’, claim for compensation. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the Final Award of the Commission is supported by competent and substantial evidence and no error of law appears. As we further find an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the Commission’s award pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

FRANK ROSSOTTO, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-2738

)

WEST PARK VILLAGE CONDOMINIUM )

ASSOCIATION, INC., )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed March 28, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Perry A. Little, Senior 

Judge.

Frank Rossotto, pro se.

Stephan C. Nikoloff of Cianfrone, Nikoloff, 

Grant & Greenberg, P.A., Dunedin, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Wahl v. Taylor, 926 

So. 2d 488, 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) ("[A]n order merely granting a motion for summary 
- 2 -

judgment is not a final order because it does not enter judgment for or against a party."); 

Better Gov't Ass'n of Sarasota Cty. v. State, 802 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

LaROSE, C.J., and CRENSHAW and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
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-2018-0025-3321

ECM Industries 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

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

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

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JIAN ZHANG,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-70507

Agency No. A099-366-341

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Jian Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration

judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in

absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of

FILED

JUN 21 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-70507

discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law,

including claims of due process violations. Hamazaspyan v. Holder, 590 F.3d 744,

747 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Zhang’s motion to reopen

where Zhang failed to establish exceptional circumstances beyond his control that

would excuse his failure to appear at his hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1).

The agency did not violate due process by considering due diligence as a

factor in denying Zhang’s motion to reopen where the BIA’s precedent decision in

Matter of J-P-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 33 (BIA 1998) (en banc) put Zhang on notice that

this factor applied. Cf. Singh v. INS, 213 F.3d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 2000) (BIA

violates due process by applying a “previously unannounced evidentiary

standard”). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 2001

_____________________________ R.H., Mothe r of H.L.B.
, J R

. , and H.L.B., Minor Children
, Appellant,

v.

D EPARTMENT OF C HILDREN AND F AMILIES , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Coleman Lee Robinson , Judge

. December 6, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
B.L. T HOMAS , C.J.
, and B ILBREY and J AY , JJ., concur

.

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

.

_____________________________2 R .H. , pro se , Appellant.

Sara J. Rumph, Appellate Counsel, Children’s Legal Services, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.

Thomasina Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Sara E. Goldfarb, Appellate Counsel, Florida Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, Tallahassee, for Guardian ad Litem Program.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-7445

Danieli 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 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
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-2018-0025-5443

Bosch Automotive Service Solutions 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
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:* National Eye Institute Special Emphasis Panel; NEI Clinical Trials and Clinical Applications II.

*Date:* June 28, 2021.

*Time:* 10:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.

*Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications.

*Place:* National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Suite 3400, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

*Contact Person:* Jennifer C. Schiltz, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Suite 3400, Bethesda, MD 20817, 240-276-5864, *jennifer.schiltz@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.867, Vision Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

 Dated: May 24, 2021. 

Melanie J. Pantoja,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2021-11293 Filed 5-27-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-7311

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER LOUIS PARK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:22-cr-00028-JPB-JPM-1)

Submitted: July 30, 2024 Decided: August 1, 2024

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Louis Park, Appellant Pro Se. Clayton John Reid, Assistant United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7311 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Louis Park appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motions for a sentence reduction.*

 “We review a district court’s 

decision [whether] to reduce a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of 

discretion and its ruling as to the scope of its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2) de novo.” 

United States v. Mann, 709 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir. 2013). Our review of the record reveals 

no error. The court clearly understood its authority to reduce Park’s sentence, but the court 

declined to grant a reduction based on its review of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order and deny Park’s motion to amend 

his informal brief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* Park’s motion to amend his informal brief indicates that he mistakenly believes 

this appeal is a direct appeal of his conviction or resentencing. However, the subject of 

this appeal is the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motions for a sentence 

reduction in light of Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines and his purportedly 

successful rehabilitation.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7311 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Higgs, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), rendered July 17, 1986, convicting him of criminal possession *615of a weapon in the second 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). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Rubin, Balletta and Miller, JJ., concur.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-7275

TI Group Automotive Systems, LLC:

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
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

RAVIS WILLIAMS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D23-2134

December 6, 2023

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for

Hillsborough County; Michelle D. Sisco, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, SMITH, and LABRIT, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
#### Sylvester HUGGINS, Defendant-Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent.

No. 63003.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Aug. 31, 1993.

S. Paige Canfield, St. Louis, for defendant-movant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Sylvester Huggins, appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion, after an evidentiary hearing. Movant was convicted, following a jury trial, of three counts of assault in the first degree and sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 30 years, 20 years, and 20 years.

We have reviewed the record with regard to the motion court’s denial of movant’s Rule 29.15 motion. The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous; no error of law appears. A written opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit
32.2
 
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer of Finlay Fine
Jewelry Corporation (the “Company”) does hereby certify with respect to the
Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended January 31, 2009
(the “Report”) that:
 
 1.
              The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and
 2.
              The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.
  Date: May
12, 2009
 
 
 /s/ Bruce E.
Zurlnick
 Bruce E.
Zurlnick
 Senior
Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
 
 
 The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United
States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 76 (Thursday, April 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19763]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9783]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[ID-942-1420-00]


Idaho: Filing of Plats of Survey; Idaho

    The plat of the following described land was officially filed in 
the Idaho State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho, 
effective 9:00 a.m., April 13, 1995.
    The plat representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the 
south and west boundaries, and subdivisional lines, and the subdivision 
of sections 19, 29, 30, 31, and 32, and metes-and-bounds survey in 
section 31, T. 14 S., R. 30 E., Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group No. 884, 
was accepted, April 7, 1995.
    This survey was executed to meet certain administrative needs of 
the Bureau of Land Management.
    All inquiries concerning the survey of the above described land 
must be sent to the Chief, Branch of Cadastral Survey, Idaho State 
Office, Bureau of Land Management, 3380 Americana Terrace, Boise, 
Idaho, 83706.

    Dated: April 13, 1995.
Harry K. Smith,
Acting Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Idaho.
[FR Doc. 95-9783 Filed 4-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GG-M
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 17, 2015

No. 04-15-00760-CR

Eddie ARRIOLA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR2717

Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Pursuant to a plea agreement with the State, appellant pleaded nolo contendere to the 

offense of indecency with child-contact (repeater). The trial court imposed a sentence in the case 

in accordance with the agreement and signed a certificate stating this “[is] a plea-bargain case, 

and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Appellant timely 

filed a notice of appeal. The clerk’s record, which includes the trial court’s rule 25.2(a)(2) 

certification and written plea bargain agreement, has been filed. See id. R. 25.2(d). This court 

must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not 

been made part of the record.” Id.

The clerk’s record establishes the punishment assessed by the court in this case does not 

exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See id.

R. 25.2(a)(2). The record also appears to support the trial court’s certification that states

appellant does not have a right to appeal in either case. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding that court of appeals should review clerk’s record to determine 

whether trial court’s certification is accurate). 
Appellant is hereby given notice that this appeal will be dismissed pursuant to rule 

25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure unless amended certifications showing that 

appellant has the right to appeal in this case is made part of the appellate record on or before

January 18, 2016. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. 

App.—San Antonio 2003, order), disp. on merits, No. 04-03-00176-CR, 2003 WL 21508347 

(July 2, 2003, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication).

We order all appellate deadlines suspended until further order of the court. We further 

order the clerk of this court to serve copies of this order on the attorneys of record and the court 

reporter. 

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 17th day of December, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court