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 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6816

Omron Management Center of America, 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
[Cite as State v. Jones , 2022

- Ohio

- 2603.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT GREENE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

CHRISTOPHER R. JONES

Defendant

- Appellant :
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: Appellate Case No. 2022

- CA

- 1

Trial Court Case No. 2019

- CR

- 678
(Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court )

. . . . . . . . . . .
O P I N I O N

Rendered on the 29th day of July , 2022

.

. . . . . . . . . . .
MEGAN A. HAMMOND, Atty. Reg. No. 0097714 , Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Greene Co unty Prosecutor’s Office, 61 Greene Street, Suite 200, Xenia, Ohio 45385 Attorney for Plaintiff

- Appellee
GLENDA A. SMITH, Atty. Reg. No. 0070738, P.O. Box 15353, Wyoming, Ohio 45215 Attorney for Defendant

- Appellant

. . . . . . . . . . . . .- 2

-

TUCKER

, P. J.

{¶ 1} Christopher R. Jones appeals from his conviction following a negotiated

guilty plea to one count of involuntary manslaughter with a forfeiture specification.

{¶ 2} In two assignments of error, Jones challenges the trial court’s overruling of a

suppression motion he filed prior to his plea. W e conclude that Jones’ guilty plea waived

his ability to challenge the suppression ruling on appeal . Accordingly, the trial court’s
judgment will be affirmed.

I. Background

{¶ 3} A grand jury indicted Jones on charges of involuntary manslaughter,
corrupting another with drugs, and heroin trafficking. The indictment included a forfeiture
specification pertaining to seized drugs and contraband.

{¶ 4} Jones subsequently moved to suppress certain statement s he made and the

results of a cell

- phone search. T he trial court overruled the motion after an evidentiary
hearing. Following the trial court’s ruling, Jones entered into a plea agreement with the

Stat e. In ex change for his guilty plea to involuntary manslaughter, the State agreed to

dismiss the other charges and agreed to a seven

- year prison sentence. The State further
agreed to dismiss a second criminal case against Jones and not to prosecute him for any
other known criminal activity. The trial court accepted the guilty plea and imposed the

agreed sentence.

II. Analysis

{¶ 5} On appeal, Jones challenges only the trial court’ s suppression ruling. He- 3

-

contends the trial court should have suppressed a statement he made about missing his

cell phone. He also claims a search warrant for the cell phone was insufficient. As the

State notes, however, Jones’ guilty plea waived his ability to challenge the trial court’s

suppression ruling

. State v. Barron , 2d Dist. Gree ne No. 2017

- CA

- 46, 2018

- Ohio

- 1221,

¶ 5

. “Moreover

, any error in the suppression ruling necessarily would be harmless where

[ Jones’ ] conviction resulted from his guilty plea and none of the evidence at issue was

admitted against him. ” Id

. Accordingly, we ov errule the two assignments of error.

III. Conclusion

{¶ 6} The judgment of the Greene County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

WELBAUM , J. and EPLEY
, J.
, concur.

Copies sent to:
Megan A. Hammond Glenda A. Smith Hon. Adolfo A. Tornichio
First Amendment to Officer Employment Agrement



 Exhibit 10.6 

FIRST AMENDMENT 

TO 

OFFICER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

Pursuant to Section 14 of the Officer Employment Agreement effective as of
                     (the “Agreement”) entitled “Waiver; Modification,” the parties to the Agreement hereby modify the Agreement
as provided below. 
 Section 6(b)(ii) shall be amended by deleting the second sentence thereto and by replacing it with
the following sentence: 
 Such payment shall be made, in the Company’s sole discretion, either (1) in accordance
with normal payroll procedures applicable to senior executive officers at the time of such termination; (2) in a single lump sum payment; or (3) in a combination of normal payroll procedures followed by a lump sum payment for the balance
of the payment; provided, that, in all cases, all payments shall be completed within the taxable year in which the Officer terminates employment, or such later time as permitted under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code or its successor
and the guidance provided by the Internal Revenue Service or Department of Treasury, such that the amount paid shall not be considered “deferred compensation” within the meaning of Section 409A. 

All other provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and unamended. 

Dated this
1st day of February of 2005. 

 

			
	FIRST STATE BANCORPORATION
		
	By:	 	  

		
	Title:	 	  

	
	OFFICER
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Robin Rae CLAY, Defendant/Appellant. Robin Rae CLAY, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Nos. 64988, 66952.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

May 9, 1995.

*240Ellen H. Flottman, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Joanne E. Beal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was charged by information with two counts of forcible sodomy (counts I *&*II), § 566.060.2, RSMo Supp.1992, ten counts of rape (counts III-XII), § 566.030.2, RSMo Supp.1992, one count of endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree (count XIII), § 568.045, RSMo Supp.1993, and two counts of use of a child in a sexual performance (counts XIV & XV), § 568.080, RSMo 1994. In a jury-waived trial, defendant was acquitted on the two counts of sodomy but convicted of all other charges. She was sentenced to concurrent terms of fifteen years on counts III thru XII, five years each on counts XIII and XIV, to run concurrently with the terms in counts III thru XII, and five years on count XV, to run consecutively to counts III thru XIV. Defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction and appeals the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of her Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit; the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
**Exhibit 9.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements of Acergy S.A. (a Luxembourg company) and its subsidiaries (the “Company”) on Form S-8, File Nos. 33-85168, 333-09292, 333-74321, 333-124983 and 333-124997 and on Form F-3 and Form F-3/A, FileNo. 333-86288 of our reports relating to the financial statements of the Company (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs relating to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting StandardsNo. 123 (revised 2004), “Share-Based Payment” and Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 158, “Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Post Retirement Plans”) and the effectiveness ofthe Company’s internal control over financial reporting dated February 25, 2008 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended November 30, 2007. 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

London, United Kingdom 

May 29, 2008
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lanny Nelson, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Dennis Edwards, Jr., J., at trial and sentence), rendered December 1, 1988, which convicted defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree, and sentenced *256him to an indeterminate prison term of from 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

On January 2, 1988, the police arrested the defendant and his accomplice for burglarizing a Fanny Farmer candy store. Defendant argues that he was denied a fair trial because the prosecutor, on summation, characterized his sole witness as incompetent, denigrated his intelligence, insinuated that the defense case depended on the existence of a police conspiracy, and vouched for the People’s witnesses.

We disagree. We first note that defendant did not proffer any objections to the comments made during summation. *(People v Balls,*69 NY2d 641, 642.) Were we to consider in the interest of justice the issues now raised, we would find them without merit. It is, of course, the right of counsel, during summation, " 'to comment upon every pertinent matter of fact bearing upon the questions the jury have to decide’ ” *(People v Ashwal,*39 NY2d 105, 109). The record herein makes clear that the prosecutor’s comments were in direct response to comments made by the defendant during summation. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Milonas and Ellerin, JJ.
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Liang Qiao, Chief Executive Officer of Bio-Bridge Science, Inc., (the
"Company"), certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Bio-Bridge Science,
Inc.;

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

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

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

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

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

      (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

      (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

      (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: September 26, 2005

/s/ Dr. Liang Qiao
-----------------------
By: Dr. Liang Qiao
Chief Executive Officer
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5544 

To amend title 31, United States Code, to eliminate exceptions to the provisions of such title commonly referred to as the Miscellaneous Receipts 

Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2023 

Ms. MACE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend title 31, United States Code, to eliminate exceptions to the provisions of such title commonly referred 

to as the Miscellaneous Receipts Act, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Upholding the Power 

5 of the Purse Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5544 IH

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF EXCEPTIONS TO MISCELLANEOUS 

2 RECEIPTS ACT. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3302 of title 31, United 

4 States Code, is amended— 

5 (1) in subsection (a) by striking ‘‘Except as 

6 provided by another law’’ and inserting ‘‘Except as 

7 provided in subsection (c)(3)’’; and 

8 (2) in subsection (c), by add at the end the fol9 lowing: 

10 ‘‘(3) The requirement in subsection (b) shall 

11 not apply to any Federal program under which the 

12 Government is a custodian of money for States or 

13 units of local government, or under which the Gov14 ernment disperses amounts to States or units of 

15 local government.’’. 

16 (b) APPLICATION.—The amendments made by sub17 section (a) shall begin to apply in fiscal year 2024. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 72 (Friday, April 14, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 19115]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9435]



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

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Notice of Agency Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the ``Government in the Sunshine 
Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:02 a.m. on 
Tuesday, April 11, 1995, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider (1) 
recommendations regarding administrative enforcement proceedings, and 
(2) matters relating to the Corporation's corporate activities.
    In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Vice 
Chairman Andrew C. Hove, Jr., seconded by Director Eugene A. Ludwig 
(Comptroller of the Currency), concurred in by Mr. John F. Downey, 
acting in the place and stead of Director Jonathan L. Fiechter (Acting 
Director, Office of Thrift Supervision), and Chairman Ricki Tigert 
Helfer, that Corporation business required its consideration of the 
matters on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier 
notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not 
require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public 
observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed 
meeting by authority of subsections (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9) (A) 
(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10) of the ``Government in the Sunshine Act'' 
(5 U.S.,C. 552b(c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and 
(c)(10)).
    The meeting was held in the Board Room of the FDIC Building located 
at 550--17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

    Dated: April 11, 1995.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Patti C. Fox,
Acting Deputy Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-9435 Filed 4-12-95; 3:32 pm]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-M
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 By:
    
    /s/ Kenneth R. Nielsen

Kenneth R. NielsenChief Financial OfficerDate:
    
    January 28, 2008
#### June PEREZ, Appellant, v. The BOATMEN’S NATIONAL BANK OF ST. LOUIS, Respondent.

No. 66053.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

March 14, 1995.

Alan G. Kimbrell, St. Louis, for appellant.

Robert M. Susman, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before SMITH, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and WHITE, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals the trial court’s sustaining of defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this breach of contract action. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b). Defendant’s motion for damages pursuant to Rule 84.19 is denied.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 105 (Thursday, June 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 29791]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11643]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center for Complementary & Integrative Health; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Center for Complementary and 
Integrative Health Special Emphasis Panel; Early Phase Clinical 
Trials of Natural Products (NP).
    Date: July 15, 2021.
    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Center for Complementary and Integrative, 
Democracy II, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual 
Meeting).
    Contact Person: Shiyong Huang, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Office of Scientific Review, Division of Extramural Activities, 
NCCIH/NIH, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 401, Bethesda, MD 20817, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4c3f24253523222b6224392d222b0c222524622b233a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="93e0fbfaeafcfdf4bdfbe6f2fdf4d3fdfafbbdf4fce5">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.213, 
Research and Training in Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 27, 2021.
Tyeshia M. Roberson,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-11643 Filed 6-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### In re The Marriage of Dwyla Justine WALKER, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Walter Alfrin WALKER, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 62048.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

May 18, 1993.

Walter A. Walker, Jr., Hampton, YA, for defendant-appellant.

Snyder, Wier, Shaller & Bachman, Elaine C. Bachman, Clayton, for plaintiff-respondent.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and GRIMM, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals an Order, Judgment and Decree entered in the St. Louis County Circuit Court on April 7, 1992. The Decree awarded custody and control of appellant’s minor children to respondent. Additionally, the Decree divided the parties marital property. From this judgment, appellant appealed. On appeal, respondent filed a motion to dismiss and for attorney’s fees.

We have read the briefs and have reviewed the legal file and transcript. Our standard of review is governed by *Murphy v. Carron,*536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976). We find no error of law and no jurisprudential purpose will be served by an extended written opinion. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b) and respondent’s motion is denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

         In connection with the annual report of FreeStar Technology Corporation
("Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005 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 Company.


Dated: November 8, 2005                 By: /s/  Paul Egan
                                            --------------
                                            Paul Egan
                                            President/Chief Executive Officer


Dated: November 8, 2005                 By: /s/  Ciaran Egan
                                            ----------------
                                            Ciaran Egan
                                            Chief Financial Office