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

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6529

ZANINI USA, Inc:

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/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.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 the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

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,

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-2018-0025-6870

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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                            5
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                 DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             116
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,955
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,334
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,376
<PP&E>                                           5,700
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,644
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  82,851
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,704
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            63
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,477
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    82,851
<SALES>                                         53,178
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                53,178
<CGS>                                           30,284
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,284
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,568
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,656
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,330)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       125
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,455)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,157)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .56



</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Eric D., an Infant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: No appeal lies from an original order that has been super-ceded by an amended order (10 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac § 70:28; *Gorfinkel v First Natl. Bank,*19 AD2d 903, 904, *affd*15 NY2d 711; *Kurtis v Allstate Ins. Co.,*43 AD2d 954, 955; *Centino v Isbrandtsen Co.,*13 AD2d 977, *revd on other grounds*11 NY2d 690, *cert denied sub nom. Universal Term. & Stevedoring Corp. v Isbrandtsen Co.,*370 US 912). (Appeal from order of Niagara County Family Court, Halpin, J.—surrender of guardianship and custody.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.
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-2018-0025-6841

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
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 99.4



CONTACT:                            Raoul J. Witteveen
                                    (212) 916-3261


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
---------------------

              INTERPOOL, INC. TO PAY CASH DIVIDEND ON COMMON STOCK
              ----------------------------------------------------

PRINCETON, N.J., December 28, 1998 - Interpool, Inc. (NYSE: IPX) announced today
that it will pay a cash dividend of 3.75 cents per share for the fourth quarter
of 1998. The dividend will be payable on January 15, 1999 to shareholders of
record on January 4, 1999. The aggregate amount of the dividend is expected to
be approximately $1,034,000.00. The amount of the quarterly dividend is based on
a 1998 annualized dividend rate of 15 cents per share.

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. Interpool leases its
containers and chassis to over 200 customers, including nearly all of the
world's 20 largest international container shipping lines.

                                      # # #
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have issued our reports dated February 2, 2000 accompanying the consolidated
financial statements and Schedule II included in the Annual Report of Safety
1st, Inc. and subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 1,
2000. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the
Registration Statements of Safety 1st, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 33-79332,
effective May 26, 1994) and on Forms S-3 (File Nos. 33-78970, effective May 19,
1994 and 33-95656, effective August 21, 1995).


                                        GRANT THORNTON LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 30, 2000
#### In the Matter of Harry Cocozzo, Petitioner, v Benjamin Ward, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

Determination of the respondent Police Commissioner of the City of New York, dated May 8, 1988, which dismissed petitioner from his position as police officer, is unanimously confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding, brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of Sup Ct, NY County [Carol Huff, J.], entered on or about Sept. 11, 1989), is dismissed, without costs.

Upon examination of the record, we conclude that the Commissioner’s determination that, while off-duty on February 7, 1985, petitioner did wrongfully carry a .45 caliber automatic firearm and did wrongfully threaten John Lorenzo therewith, was supported by substantial evidence. *(See, 300*
      *203
      *Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176.)

The testimony of complainant John Lorenzo, which was fully credited by the Administrative Law Judge (AU), provided sufficient evidence to sustain the determination. Moreover, the AU expressly found petitioner’s testimony to be inconsistent and improbable and, therefore, not credible. As the duty of weighing the evidence and choosing between conflicting evidence rests solely with the administrative agency *(see, Matter of Collins v Codd,*38 NY2d 269, 270-271), we find no reason to disturb the AU’s substantive findings which are rationally based in the record. *(See, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222, 230-231.)

Petitioner’s failure to raise, in his initial petition, the issue of lack of notice of the utilization of his employment record in determining sanctions, constitutes a waiver of the claim. *(See, Matter of David v Christian,*134 AD2d 349, 350.) In any event, the claim is without merit. In accordance with proper procedure, respondents sent petitioner a copy of the report and recommendation, together with a cover letter advising petitioner of the opportunity to submit written comments, several weeks prior to the Commissioner’s determination. Thus, petitioner was accorded a full and fair opportunity to address his service record prior to the imposition of the penalty. *(See, Matter of Bigelow v Board of Trustees,*63 NY2d 470, 473-474.)

Petitioner’s suggestion that the penalty was assessed on the basis of his leave record alone is belied by the record. In assessing a penalty, the AU expressly considered the "criminal” and "life threatening” nature of petitioner’s misconduct, as well as his disciplinary and leave records.

Finally, in light of the nature of the instant charges, as well as petitioner’s unsatisfactory employment record, we conclude that the penalty imposed is not so disproportionate to the offenses as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness. *(See, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222, 233, *supra.)*Concur—Ross, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5450 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5450

  To amend the Small Business Act to modify the application of price 
evaluation preference for qualified HUBZone small business concerns to 
               certain contracts, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 13, 2023

  Ms. Scholten (for herself and Ms. Salazar) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Small Business Act to modify the application of price 
evaluation preference for qualified HUBZone small business concerns to 
               certain contracts, 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. APPLICATION OF PRICE EVALUATION PREFERENCE FOR QUALIFIED 
              HUBZONE SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS TO CERTAIN CONTRACTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 31(c)(3) of the Small Business Act (15 
U.S.C. 657a(c)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph:
                    ``(E) Application to certain contracts.--The 
                requirements of subparagraph (A) shall apply to an 
                unrestricted order issued under an unrestricted 
                multiple award contract or the unrestricted portion of 
                a contract that is partially set aside for competition 
                restricted to small business concerns.''.
    (b) Rulemaking.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
enactment of this section, the Administrator of the Small Business 
Administration shall revise any rules or guidance to implement the 
requirements of this section.
                                 <all>
```
#### Lynn DEERFIELD, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. PARK PLAZA APARTMENT, Defendant/Respondent.

No. 65459.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Dec. 13, 1994.

Mark D. Hirschfeld, Clayton, for appellant.

H. Todd Iveson, Green, Hoffmann & Dankenbring, Clayton, for respondent.

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

*409
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff filed a claim in small claims court seeking the return of her security deposit held by defendant. After judgment for defendant in small claims court, plaintiff petitioned for a trial *de novo*in the circuit court. Following the trial *de novo,*the circuit court entered judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals; we affirm.

The judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence; no error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value. Rule 84.16(b).
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-2018-0025-6865

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
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-2018-0025-7004

MAHLE Behr USA, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request 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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18397-18398]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8864]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER94-1147-000, et al.]


Madison Gas & Electric Company, et al.; Electric Rate and 
Corporate Regulation Filings

April 4, 1995.
    Take notice that the following filings have been made with the 
Commission:

1. Madison Gas & Electric Company

[Docket No. ER94-1147-000]

    Take notice that on March 23, 1995, Madison Gas & Electric Company 
tendered for filing an amendment in the above-referenced docket.
    Comment date: April 18, 1995, in accordance with Standard Paragraph 
E at the end of this notice.

2. Public Service Company of New Mexico

[Docket No. ER94-1367-000]

    Take notice that on March 21, 1995, Public Service Company of New 
Mexico (PNM) submitted for filing a letter of clarification to 
supplement its June 16, 1994 filing of a Capacity and Energy Services 
Agreement between PNM and Enron Power Marketing, Inc. (EPMI).
    Copies of the supplement have been served upon EPMI and the New 
Mexico Public Utility Commission.
    Comment date: April 18, 1995, in accordance with Standard Paragraph 
E at the end of this notice.

3. Ohio Edison Company

[Docket No. ER94-1661-000]

    Take notice that on March 28, 1995, Ohio Edison Company tendered 
for filing an amendment in the above-referenced docket.
    Comment date: April 18, 1995, in accordance with Standard Paragraph 
E at the end of this notice.

4. New England Power Service Company

[Docket No. ER95-539-000]

    Take notice that on March 17, 1995, New England Power Service 
Company tendered for filing an amendment in the above-referenced 
docket.
    Comment date: April 18, 1995, in accordance with Standard Paragraph 
E at the end of this notice.

Standard Paragraphs

    E. Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., 
[[Page 18398]] Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 
214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 
and 18 CFR 385.214). All such motions or protests should be filed on or 
before the comment date. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public 
inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-8864 Filed 4-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
EXHIBIT 32



<PAGE>



     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Learningwire.com (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 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



May 10, 2006                              By: /s/ Stephen K. Smith
                                              --------------------------------
                                              Stephen K. Smith,
                                              President and Chief Executive
                                              Officer


May 10, 2006                              By: Michael Grove
                                              --------------------------------
                                              Michael Grove, Principal
                                              Financial and Accounting Officer
#### Dwight LOUIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 67580.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Aug. 29, 1995.

Douglas R. Hoff, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Traci J. Sanders, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals denial of his Rule, 24.035 motion for post conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).