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

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-7575

Byson Electronics US, 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 concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
#### Joy HASTEN, Employee/Appellant, v. WAL-MART, Employer/Respondent.

Nos. 69770, 69971.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Dec. 3, 1996.

Rex M. Burlison, O’Fallon, for employee/appellant.

Laura E. Smith, Evans & Dixon, St. Louis, for employer/respondent.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Eva C. Sterner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for Second Injury Fund.

Before CRANE, P. J., and GERALD M. SMITH and PUDLOWSKI, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission. Claimant *alleges*the administrative law judge used the wrong legal standard when determining causation and that the decision of the Commis- ■ sion is not supported by substantial and competent evidence. We have carefully reviewed all of the evidence in the record and find competent and substantial evidence exists to support the Commission’s decision and such evidence is not contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. We discern no jurisprudential value in issuing an extended legal opinion. The judgment of the Commission is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished with a memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order.
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-2018-0025-4684

Farris Engineering:

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
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 18405]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8851]

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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Mountain Bancshares, Inc.; Formation of, Acquisition by, or 
Merger of Bank Holding Companies

    The company listed in this notice has applied for the Board's 
approval under section 3 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 
1842) and Sec.  225.14 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.14) to 
become a bank holding company or to acquire a bank or bank holding 
company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications 
are set forth in section 3(c) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
    The application is available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Once the application has been accepted 
for processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that application or to the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Any comment on an application that 
requests a hearing must include a statement of why a written 
presentation would not suffice in lieu of a hearing, identifying 
specifically any questions of fact that are in dispute and summarizing 
the evidence that would be presented at a hearing.
    Comments regarding this application must be received not later than 
May 5, 1995.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (John E. Yorke, Senior Vice 
President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64198:
    1. Mountain Bancshares, Inc., Los Alamos, New Mexico; to become a 
bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of 
Mountain Community Bank of Los Alamos, Los Alamos, New Mexico.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 5, 1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-8851 Filed 4-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v *562Odell Stanley, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (West, J.), rendered May 1, 1987, convicting him of assault in the first 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). Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Hooper, Sullivan and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

DONALD JOSEPH DINELLO, JR., 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 37 MAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 4th day of May, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED. 

Justice Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
#### In the Matter of Mitti L. Hafford, Respondent, v Bruce A. Hafford, Appellant.

Kane, J. P.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Columbia County (Zittell, J.), entered October 20, 1989, which dismissed respondent’s written objections to a decision of a Hearing Examiner as untimely.

In May 1989, petitioner commenced proceedings in Family Court to enforce a 1987 judgment providing for support of the parties’ minor children. A hearing was held and on June 27, 1989, the Hearing Examiner entered findings of fact and ordered, *inter alia,*respondent to pay arrears pursuant to the 1987 judgment. Respondent then requested a copy of the hearing transcript in an effort to formulate objections to the Hearing Examiner’s decision. Respondent received the transcript on approximately August 31, 1989 and proceeded to submit written objections to Family Court dated September 21, 1989. Family Court dismissed the objections as untimely and this appeal by respondent followed.

We affirm. To challenge a Hearing Examiner’s decision, respondent was statutorily required to submit his written objections thereto "within thirty days after entry of the order” (Family Ct Act § 439 [e]). We reject respondent’s contention that Family Court erred in not entertaining his written objection because his delay in filing was "occasioned” by a reasonable effort to obtain the hearing transcript. In this instance, petitioner’s attempt to challenge the determination was "barred by [his] undisputed failure to fulfill the condition precedent of filing timely written objections to the Hearing Examiner’s decision and order” *(Matter of O’Brien v O’Brien,*156 AD2d 778, 779). Accordingly, Family Court properly dismissed petitioner’s written objections.

Order affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Weiss, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6154

JUAN P. MCLENDON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (7:06-cv-00655-jlk)

Submitted: April 19, 2007 Decided: April 25, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Juan P. McLendon, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Juan P. McLendon appeals the district court’s orders

denying relief on his action filed under the Federal Torts Claims

Act and denying his motion to amend the complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. McLendon v.

United States, No. 7:06-cv-00655-jlk (W.D. Va. Dec. 14, 2006;

Jan. 11, 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
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 3309-021]

On December 1, 2020, Marlow Hydro, LLC (Marlow Hydro) filed an application for a subsequent license for the 225-kilowatt Nash Mill Dam Hydroelectric Project No. 3309. On May 5, 2020, Marlow Hydro filed a notice of withdrawal of its application.

No motion in opposition to the notice of withdrawal has been filed, and the Commission has taken no action to disallow the withdrawal. Pursuant to Rule 216(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,[1]            the withdrawal of the application became effective on May 21, 2021, and this proceeding is hereby terminated.

Dated: May 21, 2021.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.     18 CFR 385.216(b) (2020).
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2021-11337 Filed 5-27-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano Richard H. Bernstein,
Justices 

# Order

March 6, 2015

150191

- 2

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 150191 COA: 313880 Macomb CC: 2012

- 000656

- FC KOLIE LANAR MCADOO, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 150192 COA: 313881 Macomb CC: 2012

- 003414

- FH KOLIE LANAR MCADOO, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 28, 2014 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

M C C ORMACK , J. ( concurring ).

I concur in the order denying leave to appeal. I write separately to note my unease with the expert testimony regarding the toolmark evidence offered by the prosecution. In recent years significant doubt has been cast on th e reliability and scientific foundation of that evidence. According to a 2009 forensic science report from the National Research Council of the National Academies, toolmark analysis lacks the empirical and statistical work that is needed to support conclu sions regarding identity. The report noted thatI, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 6, 2015

s0303 2

Clerk [t]oolmark and firearms analysis suffers from the same limitations [as other types of] impression evidence. Because not enough is known about the variabilities among individual tools and guns, we are not able to specify how many points of similarity are necessary for a given level of confidence

in the result. Sufficient studies have not been done to understand the reliability and repeatability of the methods. [National Research Council of the National Academies, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United

States: A Path Forward (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2009), p 154.]

The report also raised concerns regarding the subjectivity and error rate in toolmark analysis, as well as the lack of a precisely defined testing process. Id . at 155. Given these criticisms, I believe there are serious questions about whether such evide nce has an adequate scientific foundation to allow its admission under MRE 702. See Gilbert v DaimlerChrysler Corp , 470 Mich 749, 779

- 783 (2004) (discussing the trial court’s role as “gatekeeper” for the admission of expert testimony). I concur in this C ourt’s order denying leave to appeal, however, because this issue is unpreserved and I am not convinced that the defendant has demonstrated that he is entitled to relief given the other evidence of guilt.

B ERNSTEIN

, J., joins the statement of M C C ORMACK

, J.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1




                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



The Board of Directors
Styles on Video, Inc.


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration 
Statement on Form S-3 (33-77942) and the Registration Statements on Form S-8 
(33-79138, 33-60830, 33-60832, 33-60834 and 33-60836) of our report dated August
2, 1996, except as to Note 18, which is as of January 31, 1997, on the 
consolidated financial statements of Styles on Video, Inc. and subsidiaries as 
of and for the year ended December 31, 1995 appearing in the Annual Report on 
Form 10-KSB of Styles on Video, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1995.



                                                /s/ Corbin & Wertz

                                                   CORBIN & WERTZ

Irvine, California
March 18, 1997
# United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 18-1704 JOSEPH O'BRIEN, Plaintiff, Appellant,

v. TOWN OF BELLINGHAM, Commonwealth of Massachusetts; RICHARD PERRY, individually and in his official capacity as a police officer; TIMOTHY JOYCE, individually and in his official capacity as a police officer; JAMES RUSSELL, individually and in his official capacity as a police officer; BRIAN KUTCHER, individually and in his official capacity as a police officer; JOHN MELANSON, individually and in his official capacity as a police officer, Defendants, Appellees, ERIC ZIMMERMAN, individually and in his official capacity as a police officer; MICHAEL GILBOY, individually and in his official capacity as a police officer,
Defendants.

**ERRATA SHEET**
The opinion of this Court, issued on November 22, 2019, is amended as follows: On page 11, lines 5-6, please replace "Almost forty minutes after arriving at the Police Station," with "Almost forty minutes after O'Brien arrived at the Police Station,".
Exhibit 32





CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. §1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Terry G. Roussel and Sharon C. Kaiser, do each 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 his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Cornerstone Core Properties REIT, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the three -month period ended June 30, 2009 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of  Cornerstone Core Properties REIT, Inc.





/s/ TERRY G. ROUSSELDate: August 14, 2009
Terry G. RousselChief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)








/s/ SHARON C. KAISERDate: August 14, 2009
Sharon C. KaiserChief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         236,113
<SECURITIES>                                    14,886
<RECEIVABLES>                                   95,669
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,919
<INVENTORY>                                    261,465
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               627,329
<PP&E>                                         792,460
<DEPRECIATION>                                 214,437
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,275,551
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          344,073
<BONDS>                                        765,932
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           64,811
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           202
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,181
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,275,551
<SALES>                                      4,328,241
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,352,163
<CGS>                                        3,703,432
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,204,138
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               145,144
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              82,656
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (79,775)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,613
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (87,388)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (20,710)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (108,098)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          29,588
<SECURITIES>                                    13,251
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,483
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,913
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         709,781
<DEPRECIATION>                                 128,050
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,028,919
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           99,600
<BONDS>                                        595,439
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            28
<OTHER-SE>                                     245,216
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,028,919
<SALES>                                        118,922
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               118,922
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                53,369
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,008
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 29,545
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             25,845
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (4,878)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,967
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .48



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23





                         Consent of Independent Auditors



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-09712) pertaining to the 1993 Stock Incentive Plan of E.W. Blanch
Holdings, Inc., the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-65689) pertaining
to the K2 Technologies, Inc. 1994 Stock Plan, K2 Technologies, Inc. 1996 Stock
Plan, K2 Technologies, Inc. and the 1998 Key Person Stock Option Plan, the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-45261) pertaining to the Non-Employee
Directors' Stock Plan, Directors' Stock Option Plan, Executive Restricted Stock
Incentive Plan, and the 1997 Stock Incentive Plan, and the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-41078) pertaining to the 2000 Stock Incentive Plan,
of our report dated February 28, 2001, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of E.W. Blanch Holdings, Inc. incorporated by reference in
the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2000.



                                            /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Dallas, Texas
April 2, 2001