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

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-7326

BYD Motors 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/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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 9 (Friday, January 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 3275]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-872]



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


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel in Geosciences; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Geosciences (1756).
    Date and time: February 3, 1995; 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
    Place: Room #770, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA.
    Type of meeting: Closed.
    Contact person: Dr. Judith L. Hannah, Program Director, 
Education and Human Resources Program, Division of Earth Sciences, 
Room 785, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, 
VA, 22230. Telephone: (703) 306-1557.
    Purpose of meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate Postdoctoral Panel proposals as 
part of the selection process for awards.
    Reason for closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: January 9, 1995.
Linda Allen-Benton,
Deputy Director, HRM.
[FR Doc. 95-872 Filed 1-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
DISMISSED; Opinion Filed March 19, 2019.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-00242-CV

ANGELINA ARREDONDO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS 

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF DANIEL CANALES ARREDONDO, 

DECEASED AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF LEIA ARREDONDO, A MINOR, Appellants

V.

BRENDON JOHN BAIRD, PA-C, JOHN TIMOTHY TRACY, M.D., BAYLOR ALL 

SAINTS MEDICAL CENTER D/B/A BAYLOR SCOTT & WHITE ALL SAINTS 

MEDICAL CENTER - FORT WORTH, AND BAYLOR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 

D/B/A BAYLOR SCOTT & WHITE HEALTH, Appellees

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-07257

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges, Partida-Kipness, and Carlyle

Opinion by Justice Carlyle

Before the Court is appellants’ unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal. Appellants have 

informed the Court that the district clerk forwarded their “Notice of Mandamus Appeal” to this 

Court in error. Accordingly, we grant appellants’ motion and dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.1(a)(1).

190242F.P05

/Cory L. Carlyle/

CORY L. CARLYLE

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

ANGELINA ARREDONDO, 

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS 

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF 

DANIEL CANALES ARREDONDO, 

DECEASED AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF 

LEIA ARREDONDO, A MINOR, 

Appellants

No. 05-19-00242-CV V.

BRENDON JOHN BAIRD, PA-C, JOHN 

TIMOTHY TRACY, M.D., BAYLOR ALL 

SAINTS MEDICAL CENTER D/B/A 

BAYLOR SCOTT & WHITE ALL SAINTS 

MEDICAL CENTER - FORT WORTH, 

AND BAYLOR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 

D/B/A BAYLOR SCOTT & WHITE 

HEALTH, Appellees

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-07257.

Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle. 

Justices Bridges and Partida-Kipness 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellees BRENDON JOHN BAIRD, PA-C, JOHN TIMOTHY 

TRACY, M.D., BAYLOR ALL SAINTS MEDICAL CENTER D/B/A BAYLOR SCOTT & 

WHITE ALL SAINTS MEDICAL CENTER - FORT WORTH, AND BAYLOR HEALTH 

CARE SYSTEM D/B/A BAYLOR SCOTT & WHITE HEALTH recover their costs of this 

appeal from appellants ANGELINA ARREDONDO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS 

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF DANIEL CANALES ARREDONDO, DECEASED 

AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF LEIA ARREDONDO, A MINOR.

Judgment entered this 19th day of March, 2019.
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Jorge CASTELLO, Defendant/Appellant. Jorge CASTELLO, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Nos. 63923, 66089.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

March 21, 1995.

Robert E. Steele, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Mary Moulton Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before GRIMM, C.J., and REINHARD and CRANE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

A jury found defendant * guilty of delivering marijuana and possessing marijuana, in violation of §§ 195.211 and 195.202, RSMo 1994. In addition, defendant pled guilty to failure to appear, in violation of § 544.665, RSMo 1994. The trial court sentenced defendant as a persistent offender to ten years, one year, and one year, all concurrently.

On direct appeal, defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that he delivered marijuana to an undercover officer. In addition, he claims plain error in the reception of the narcotics analysis laboratory report. The evidence was sufficient and we find no plain error.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The judgment and sentence are affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25.

Defendant filed a motion and an amended motion to vacate under Rule 29.15. The motion court denied an evidentiary hearing and entered findings, conclusions, and judgment denying defendant relief. Although defendant appealed this denial, his brief does not contain any points relating thereto. Therefore, this appeal is deemed abandoned and the motion court’s judgment is affirmed.

*

 The indictment and substitute information in lieu of indictment both show the defendant as Jorge Castello. They both show that he uses an alias of Jorge Castillo-Perez.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

          I, Martin Tuchman, certify that:

          1.      I have reviewed this AnnualReport on Form 10-K of Interpool, Inc.

          2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

          3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report; 

          4.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

               (a)     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; 

               (b)     Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and 

               (c)     Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and 

          5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions): 

               (a)     All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial data; and 

               (b)     Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting. 

Date:  March 28, 2005
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference inthe Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-06275, 333-66831,333-79047, 333-58264 and 333-110326) of Anika Therapeutics, Inc.of our report dated March 13,2007 relating to the financial statements, management’s assessment ofthe effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears inthis Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Boston, MassachusettsMarch 13, 2007

----
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 18154]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10183]



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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis 
Panel (SEP) meeting:

    Name of SEP: Master Agreement for HIV Preclinical Vaccine 
Development proposals, tasks G and I.
    Date: April 25, 1996.
    Time: 8:00 a.m.
    Place: Washington National Airport Hilton Hotel, 2399 Jefferson 
Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202, (703) 418-6800.
    Contact Person: Dr. Allen Stoolmiller, Scientific Review Adm., 
6003 Executive Boulevard, Solar Bldg., Room 4C05, Bethesda, MD 
20892-7610, (301) 496-7966.
    Purpose/Agenda: To evaluate contract proposals.
    The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in secs. 552(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. 
Applications and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations imposed by 
the review and funding cycle.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs Nos. 93.855, 
Immunology, Allergic and Immunologic Diseases Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health)

    Dated: April 19, 1996.
Sustan K. Feldman,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 96-10183 Filed 4-20-96; 11:49 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 26, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-6902

Polaris Industries 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 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
#### Public Administrator of the County of New York, as Administrator of the Estate of Andrew J. Milam, Deceased, Appellant, v Gibson & Cushman of New York, Inc., Respondent.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (David Edwards, Jr., J.), entered on or about October 27, 1989, which dismissed the first, second, and fourth causes of action under the Jones Act (46 USC § 688) as time barred and struck the jury demand in the maritime claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The facts, as established in a previous appeal *(Milam v Gibson & Cushman,*81 AD2d 555), reveal that, in 1973, plaintiff seaman commenced this general maritime action against defendant Gibson & Cushman of New York, Inc. seeking monetary damages for personal injuries sustained in September 1967. Plaintiffs causes of action for negligent injury under the Jones Act (46 USC, Appendix § 688) are governed by a three-year Statute of Limitations *(Clauson v Smith,*823 F2d 660, 661) and, thus, expired well before the action was commenced. The instant record fails to provide any support for plaintiffs contention that the limitations period should be tolled *(see, Clauson v Smith, supra; see also, Sim*
      *402
      *cuski v Saeli,*44 NY2d 442) as there is no proof that plaintiff relied on any misrepresentation by defendant which caused him to delay timely commencement of the action.

The trial court also properly struck plaintiff’s jury demand because the remaining maritime cause of action, based on a claim of unseaworthiness, is to be tried nonjury *(see, Mahramas v American Export Isbrandtsen Lines,*475 F2d 165, 172).

We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Asch, Smith and Rubin, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Allan Henderson, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: *1039Defendant contends that County Court erred in refusing his request to charge the defense of justification. We disagree. The evidence was insufficient to establish defendant’s subjective belief that decedent was about to use deadly physical force against him or that under the circumstances his beliefs and reactions were that of a reasonable man *(see, People v Reynoso, 73*NY2d 816, 818; *People v Watts,*57 NY2d 299). This failure of proof resulted, however, from the court’s ruling improperly limiting defendant’s evidence that he reasonably believed that decedent was about to use deadly force against him. County Court repeatedly precluded defendant from introducing evidence regarding his state of mind and intent at the time of the stabbing *(see, People v Levan,*295 NY 26, 33-34; *People v Guadalupe,*122 AD2d 807, 809; *People v Rivera,*101 AD2d 981, 982, *affd*65 NY2d 661). The court further erred in refusing to permit testimony of the victim’s statements to a third party. That testimony was properly offered to show the state of mind of the victim and raise the inference that defendant was not the aggressor (see, *People v Miller,*39 NY2d 543, 549; *People v Dixon,*138 AD2d 929, 930). The court should also have permitted defendant to call his former counsel to testify concerning his physical characteristics and demeanor shortly after the stabbing *(see, People v Kinder,*126 AD2d 60, 62-63, *Iv denied*70 NY2d 649). Since these errors seriously undermined defendant’s justification defense, a new trial is required. We additionally hold that at the new trial, the prosecutor should refrain from implying that defendant’s visit to his attorney’s office immediately after the stabbing indicated a consciousness of guilt *(see, People v Al-Kanani,*26 NY2d 473, 478; *People v Ubiles,*148 AD2d 1002, 1003, *Iv denied*74 NY2d 748).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Maloy, J.—murder, second degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Green, Lawton and Lowery, JJ.
```

EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF FINLAY FINE JEWELRY CORPORATION                 JURISDICTION
-----------------------------------------------                 ------------

Finlay Jewelry, Inc.                                              Delaware
Finlay Merchandising & Buying, Inc.                               Delaware
Sonab Holdings, Inc.                                              Delaware
Sonab International, Inc.                                         Delaware
Societe Nouvelle D'Achat de Bijouterie - S.O.N.A.B.               France
eFinlay, Inc.                                                     Delaware
Carlyle & Co. Jewelers                                            Delaware
Carlyle & Co. of Montgomery                                       Alabama
J.E. Caldwell & Co.                                               Pennsylvania
Park Promenade, Inc.                                              Florida
```
Exhibit 23

                 Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-77072) pertaining to the Starter Corporation 401(k) Plan, the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-77076) pertaining to the Starter
Corporation 1993 Stock Option Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
33-80976) pertaining to the Starter Corporation 1994 Stock Option Plan for
Non-Employee Directors, and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-80978)
pertaining to the Starter Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan, of our
report dated March 31, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Starter Corporation included in this Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1997.

                                              Ernst & Young, LLP.




Hartford, Connecticut
March 31, 1998
#### In re MARRIAGE OF Sandra Sue MELCHIOR and Bradley Thomas Melchior. Sandra Sue MELCHIOR, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Bradley Thomas MELCHIOR, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 61778.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

May 11, 1993.

N. Scott Rosenblum, Ramona L. Marten, Wittner, Poger and Rosenblum, Clayton, for appellant.

Alan Neal Zvibleman, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before CARL R. GAERTNER, P.J., and CRANE and CRAHAN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s judgment in a dissolution case. The trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. *Murphy v. Carron,*536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976).

An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion, for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 10.5

                             ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT
                                    CONTRACT

         This Addendum to Employment Contract  ("Addendum") is made this 9th day
of August, 2004, and shall supplement and amend that Employee -Employer Contract
("Contract"),  dated  August 9th,  2001,  entered  into by and between  FreeStar
Technology  Corporation (formerly Freestar  Technologies),  a Nevada corporation
("Employer"), Calle Fantino Falco, J.A. Baez Building, 2nd Floor, Santo Domingo,
Dominican  Republic,  and Ciaran Egan  ("Employee"),  AV Romula Betancourd 1212,
Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.

         All terms and conditions of the Contract not otherwise  amended by this
Addendum shall remain in full force and effect.

         The  Employer  and  Employee  agree that the contract be extended for a
further  three years  expiring on August 9th,  2007 .The  Employer  and Employee
agree that a remuneration review take place on or before 31st of December 2004.

         IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  parties  have  caused  this  Addendum  to be
executed and delivered as of the date first above written.

                                   EMPLOYER :

                                   FREESTAR TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

                                   By: /s/ Paul Egan
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Paul Egan, Chief Executive Officer

                                   EMPLOYEE:

                                   CIARAN EGAN

                                   By: /s/  Ciaran Egan
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Ciaran Egan