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

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-6887

Sears Holdings Management 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
Unassociated Document


    Exhibit
      4(b)


    


    RESTATED
      CERTIFICATE OF TRUST

    OF

    BEAR
      STEARNS CAPITAL TRUST IV

    


    THIS
      Restated Certificate of Trust of Bear Stearns Capital Trust IV (the “Trust”),
      dated as of October 31, 2006 (this “Certificate”), is being duly executed and
      filed on behalf of the Trust by the undersigned, as trustee, to amend and
      restate the original Certificate of Trust of the Trust which was filed on
      November 4, 1998, with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware under
      the
      Delaware Statutory Trust Act (12 Del.
      C. §
3801
      et
      seq.) (the “Act”).

     

    1.
      Name.
      The name
      of the statutory trust continued hereby is Bear Stearns Capital Trust
      IV.

    


    2.
      Delaware
      Trustee.
      The name
      and business address of the trustee of the Trust in the State of Delaware are
      The Bank of New York (Delaware), 502 White Clay Center, Route 273, PO Box 6973,
      Newark, DE 19711.

    


    3.
      Effective
      Date.
      This
      Certificate shall be effective upon filing.

    


    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate in accordance
      with Section 3811(a) of the Act.

     

    
      	 	 	 
	 	
              The
                Bank of New York (Delaware), as 

              Delaware
                Trustee

            
	 
 	 
 	 
 
	
            	By:  	/s/ KRISTINE
              K. GULLO
	 	
              

              Name:
                Kristine K. Gullo

            
	 	Title:
              Vice President
#### In the Matter of Zane Howard, an Infant, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, Camille Megna, Respondent, v City of Rochester et al., Appellants.

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, plaintiffs motion denied, *1034and defendants’ cross motions granted. Memorandum: Plaintiffs infant son sustained injuries when he fell from a slide to a blacktop surface at a playground located in Genesee Valley Park in August 1986. She moved three years later to file a late notice of claim on behalf of her infant son against defendants, who opposed the motion on the ground that they would be severely prejudiced if forced to defend the merits of a three-year-old claim of which they had no prior knowledge.

The court erred in granting plaintiffs motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim. Whether to grant an extension to file a notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) is discretionary *(see, Cohen v Pearl Riv. Union Free School Dist.,*51 NY2d 256, 259). Courts are to consider in particular whether the responsible party had actual notice, and also shall consider all other relevant facts, including infancy (General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]). Here, plaintiff failed to prove that defendants had actual knowledge of the facts underlying her negligence claim *(see, Washington v City of New York,*72 NY2d 881, 883; *Wencek v County of Chautauqua,*132 AD2d 950). We find that defendants have demonstrated substantial prejudice *(see, Matter of Hogan v Town of Orangetown,*108 AD2d 857), and that the disability of infancy is outweighed by other factors *(see, Matter of Schirripa v Birch Lane Elementary School,*154 AD2d 536; *Matter of Groshans v Town of Babylon,*143 AD2d 666). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Willis, J.—late notice of claim.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Law-ton, JJ.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent, v. Eugene COUNTS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 63617.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

March 1, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 7, 1994.

Application to Transfer Denied May 26, 1994.

Bradley S. Dede, Shaw, Howlett & Rnap-penberger, Clayton, for defendant-appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., F. Martin Dajani, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent-respondent.

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

*ORDER*

*PER CURIAM.*

Defendant, Eugene Counts, appeals from a judgment of conviction, after a jury trial, for stealing a motor vehicle. He was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to imprisonment for ten years.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion in this case. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
#### James MOLAND, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 47468.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

July 27, 1993.

Rebecca Kurz, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before FENNER, P.J., and SPINDEN and SMART, JJ.

*554ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Defendant appeals from the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of a Rule 24.-035 motion for post-conviction relief.

The denial of post-conviction relief is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 73 (Monday, April 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19239]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9424]



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


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Financial Assistance Award: Sandor Drobilisch, Sandor Engineering

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy announces that pursuant to 10 
CFR 600.6(a)(2) it is making a financial assistance award under Grant 
Number DE-FG01-95EE15496 to Sandor Drobilisch, Sandor Engineering. The 
proposed grant will provide funding in the estimated amount of $69,200 
by the Department of Energy for the purpose to further develop and 
market a spiral track oven, which will reduce the energy and time 
required during the curing stages of microchip manufacturing. This 
award will be made 14 calendar days after publication to allow for 
public comment.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of Energy has determined in 
accordance with 10 CFR 600.14(e)(1) that the unsolicited application 
for financial assistance submitted by Sandor Drobilisch, Sandor 
Engineering is meritorious based on the general evaluation required by 
10 CFR 600.14(d) and the proposed project represents a unique idea that 
would not be eligible for financial assistance under a recent, current 
or planned solicitation. The new technology would eliminate the last of 
the remaining hand-operation steps in manufacturing microchips and, 
thereby, fully automate microchip production.
    The proposed project is not eligible for financial assistance under 
a recent, current or planned solicitation because the funding program, 
the Energy Related Invention Program (ERIP), has been structured since 
its beginning in 1975 to operate without competitive solicitations 
because the authorizing legislation directs ERIP to provide support for 
worthy ideas submitted by the public. The program has never issued and 
has no plans to issue a competitive solicitation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please write the U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Placement and Administration, ATTN: Rose Mason, HR-
531.21, 1000 Independence Ave., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585.
    The anticipated term of the proposed grant is 18 months from the 
date of award.

    Issued in Washington, D.C. on April 6, 1995.
Lynn Warner,
Contracting Officer, Office of Placement and Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-9424 Filed 4-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
**Exhibit 13.2**

**ASAT Holdings Limited**

**Certification of Acting Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

Pursuant to the requirements of 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, Kei W. Chua, the Acting Chief Financial Officer of ASAT Holdings Limited (the “Company”), does hereby certify as follows:

To the best of my knowledge, the Company’s annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2006 accompanying thisCertification in the form filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Dated: October 10, 2006

 

*The Certification set forth above is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and should not be deemed to be filed under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by the Company or the certifying officers.*
#### Linda D. Misek-Falkoff et al., Appellants, v International Business Machines Corporation et al., Respondents.

Order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Vincent Gurahian, J.), entered on April 12, 1989, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) and (7), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff seeks recovery for infliction of emotional distress based upon various acts committed by International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) employees. The majority of these acts occurred more than one year prior to commencement of this action. Those which occurred within a year prior to commencement of the action were the placement of plaintiff on medical disability, and the refusal to release certain personal records allegedly belonging to the plaintiff but stored in IBM computer files. The latter claim is also apparently the subject of another pending action.

The motion court properly applied a one-year Statute of Limitations to the cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress *(Gallagher v Directors Guild,*144 AD2d 261). Excluding those alleged acts which were beyond the limitations period, the complaint was properly dismissed. Viewing the allegations of the complaint most favorably to the plaintiff, the conduct alleged was not so egregious as to sustain the cause of action *(Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp.,*58 NY2d 293). Absent concrete factual allegations of a continuing conspiracy or concerted course of action against plaintiff, we need not reach the issue of whether, if properly pleaded, the acts more remote in time could be considered actionable as part of a "continuing” tort. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Rosenberger, Asch and Rubin, JJ.
#### ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY and B & A Pipe Line Company, Appellants, v. The LONG TRUSTS, Appellee.

No. 6-92-025-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Texarkana.

June 16, 1992.

*438ORDER

BLEIL, Justice.

The Long Trusts moved this Court to dismiss the cause for lack of jurisdiction because Atlantic Richfield and B & A Pipe Line Company did not comply with the applicable rules of appellate procedure when posting a deposit for costs. We overrule the motion. Tex.R.App.P. 46(b) allows an appellant to perfect his appeal by depositing $1,000.00 with the trial court clerk, in lieu of a surety bond. A deposit may consist of cash or a negotiable obligation of the government of the United States or, with leave of court, a negotiable obligation of any bank. Tex. R.App.P. 48.

In the present case Atlantic Richfield and B & A Pipe Line Company filed a personal cheek in the amount of $1,000.00 with the district clerk, who, in accordance with the normal procedures of that office, accepted the check without the formal order contemplated by Rule 48. The check has been honored by the bank. The clerk acknowledged receipt by issuing a certificate of deposit.

The Long Trusts argue that payment by check constitutes a fatal defect in the appeal bond and that this Court has failed to obtain jurisdiction over the appeal. A court of appeals has jurisdiction over any appeal when the appellant files an instrument that was filed in a bona fide attempt to invoke the appellate court’s jurisdiction. *Grand Prairie I.S.D. v. Southern Parts,*813 S.W.2d 499 (Tex.1991); *Jinkins v. Bryan,*733 S.W.2d 268 (Tex.App. — Amarillo 1987, no writ). We may not dismiss an appeal when the appellant files a wrong instrument without giving the appellant an opportunity to correct the error. *Walker v. Blue Water Garden Apartments,*776 S.W.2d 578, 581 (Tex.1989). When the cheek was honored by the bank, the issue of the manner of the deposit became moot. The requirement of the posting of a cost deposit had been fulfilled, and in light of the bank’s having honored the check, it would be a useless act to require another deposit in a different form. We are not inclined to order a useless act. The deposit of a negotiable instrument, in lieu of a surety bond, that has been honored by the bank, together with the appropriate certificate from the district clerk, is sufficient to perfect the appeal and vest this Court with jurisdiction.1

The motion to dismiss is denied.

1

. This holding is in keeping with the modern rule that payment or an offer of payment in a manner *439which is current in the ordinary course of business dealings is satisfactory. *See, e.g., TSB Exco v. E.N. Smith, III Energy Corp.,*818 S.W.2d 417, 420-21 (Tex.App. — Texarkana 1991, no writ); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 249 (1981).
EX-32                                             SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

                            SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Annual Report of FreeStar Technology
Corporation ("Registrant") on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates
indicated below, hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) that to 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 operations
of the Registrant.


Dated: January 6, 2004                 By: /s/  Paul Egan
                                       Paul Egan, President


Dated: January 6, 2004                 By: /s/  Ciaran Egan
                                       Ciaran Egan, Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Samuel George, Appellant.

Order unanimously reversed on the law and matter remitted to Niagara County Court for resettlement of the record. Memorandum: It was error to settle this record to include the record from an unrelated action *(see, Matter of Bligen v Kelly,*126 AD2d 989; *Broida v Bancroft,*103 AD2d 88). (Appeal from order of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J.—settle record.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANTTO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to the requirementset forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended, (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 ofTitle 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), Todd Schull, PrincipalFinancial Officer of Sanmina-SCI Corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifiesthat, to the best of his knowledge:

 

1.                                       The Company’sAnnual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 27,2008, as amended (the “Periodic Report”), fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, theundersigned has set his hand hereto as of June 11, 2009.

 
|   | /s/ Todd Schull                                                                           |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Todd Schull  Senior Vice President and Corporate Controller (Principal Financial Officer) |

 

This certificationaccompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated byreference into any filing of Sanmina-SCI Corporation under the Securities Actof 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended(whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective ofany general incorporation language contained in such filing.

 

----
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906CERTIFICATION**

 

In connectionwith this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Foundation Coal Corporation forthe period ended March 31, 2005, I, James F. Roberts Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Foundation Coal Holdings, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

1.                                       This Form 10-Qfor the period ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in this Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Foundation Coal Corporation.

 
| Date: May 16, 2005 | /s/ JAMES F. ROBERTS                      |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
|                    | James F. Roberts  Chief Executive Officer |

 

1

----
Order entered December 9 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 01455

- CV

VENATOR MATERIALS PL C, ET AL., A ppellant s

V.

MACOMB COUNTY EMPLOY EES' RETIREMENT SYST EM AND FIREMEN’S

RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF ST. LOUIS , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 19

- 02030



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellants’ unopposed December 5, 2019 motion for extension of

tim e to file their brief. We GRANT the motion and O R D E R appellants’ brief due on or before

January 22, 2020.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 83 (Monday, April 29, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 18756]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10482]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Petroleum Environmental Research Forum

    Notice is hereby given that, on April 9, 1996, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the participants in the Petroleum 
Environmental Research Forum (``PERF'') Project No. 95-02, titled 
``Basic Principles and Control of Crude Oil Emulsion Formation-Part 
3,'' have filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney 
General and with the Federal Trade Commission disclosing a change in 
project membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, the following parties have become members in the PERF 
Project: Marathon Oil Company, Littleton, CO; Mobil Technology Company, 
Paulsboro, NJ; and Texaco, Inc., Houston, TX.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or the 
planned activities of the Project. Membership remains open, and the 
participants intend to file additional notifications(s) disclosing all 
changes in membership in this Project.
    On November 30, 1995, PERF Project No. 95-02 filed its original 
notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of 
Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 
6(b) of the Act on January 31, 1996 (61 FR 3464).
    Information regarding participation in PERF Project No. 95-02 may 
be obtained from Ms. Catherine Peddie, Shell Oil Products Company, 
Houston, TX.
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 96-10482 Filed 4-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
Exhibit 32

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

         In connection with the annual report of FreeStar Technology Corporation
("Registrant")  on Form  10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Report"), the undersigned,  in the
capacities and on the dates indicated below,  hereby certify pursuant to Section
906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  Section  1350) that to 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 operations of the
Registrant.

Dated: October 26, 2004           By: /s/  Paul Egan
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Paul Egan, President

Dated: October 26, 2004           By: /s/  Ciaran Egan
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Ciaran Egan, Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-46319 and
No. 333-72666) and the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 33-66456, No. 33-75374, No. 33-88304,
No. 333-55939, No. 333-55971, No. 33-92574, and 33-81102) of Firstwave Technologies, Inc. of our report dated
April 16, 2001 relating to the statement of operations and financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K/A.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Atlanta, GA
June 9, 2003

---

QuickLinks