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

September 26, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-6675

Invacare Corp:

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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wilfredo Rosario, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome Hornblass, J.), rendered September 28, 1988, convicting defendant, upon a jury verdict, of murder in the second degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from 15 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People *(People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490), we find that defendant’s guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant was positively identified as the person who had entered an apartment building with the victim and who left immediately after the victim screamed. The victim, who had been stabbed, followed the defendant out of the building, bleeding and holding her side. She pointed in defendant’s direction and said "[sjtop him. Call the cops” before collapsing.

The record amply supports the hearing court’s determination that defendant’s warrantless arrest on the street was based on probable cause. The arresting officer reasonably relied on a communication from another officer who possessed the requisite probable cause to arrest defendant based on reliable hearsay information and his own personal observations. *(See, People v Bigelow,*66 NY2d 417; *People v Johnson,*66 NY2d 398; *People v Petralia,*62 NY2d 47, *cert denied*469 US 852.)

Contrary to defendant’s contention, the hearing court did *not err in*precluding him from calling the identifying witness at the *Wade*hearing since there is no absolute right to compulsory process at such hearings. As the Court of Appeals recently noted in *People v Chipp*(75 NY2d 327, 337), "as at trial, any right of compulsory process at a *Wade*hearing may be outweighed by countervailing policy concerns, properly within the discretion and control of the hearing Judge. To hold otherwise would, in our view, only encourage the misuse of *Wade*hearings. To accord every defendant an absolute right to call an identifying witness at a *Wade*hearing would enable defendants to harass identifying witnesses and to transform the hearing into a discovery proceeding neither authorized nor contemplated by the Legislature *(see, People v Hodge,*53 NY2d 313, 318 * * *).”

*389We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Milonas, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 71 (Thursday, April 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 18851]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9103]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[ID-942-7130-00-7661]


Idaho: Filing of Plats of Survey; Idaho

    The plats of the following described land was officially filed in 
the Idaho State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho, 
effective 9:00 a.m., April 6, 1995.
    The plat representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the 
north boundary, subdivisional lines, and meanders of the Middle Fork of 
the Clearwater River, the subdivision of section 5, and a metes-and-
bounds survey in section 5, T. 32 N., R. 4 E., Boise Meridian, Idaho, 
Group No. 893, was accepted, April 3, 1995.
    The plat representing the dependent resurvey of portions of the 
North Boundary of the Nez Perce Indian Reservation and the 
subdivisional lines, and the subdivision of section 20, T. 37 N., R. 1 
W., Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group No. 897, was accepted April 3, 1995.
    These surveys were executed to meet certain administrative needs of 
the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Northern Idaho Agency.
    All inquiries concerning the survey of the above described land 
must be sent to the Chief, Branch of Cadastral Survey, Idaho State 
Office, Bureau of Land Management, 3380 Americana Terrace, Boise, 
Idaho, 83706.

    Dated: April 6, 1995.
Duane E. Olsen,
Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Idaho.
[FR Doc. 95-9103 Filed 4-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GG-M
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 4, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-21-00349-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L.A.F.S., J.E.S., JR., AND J.J.S., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 308th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2019-59876

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, C.M., appeals a final decree signed June 2, 2021, terminating her 

parental rights to the children who are the subjects of this suit. Appellant filed a 

timely notice of appeal. 

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal 

is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), presenting a professional evaluation 

of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See 

High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The Anders
2

procedures are applicable to an appeal from the termination of parental rights when 

an appointed attorney concludes that there are no non-frivolous issues to assert on 

appeal. In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, 

no pet.). 

On August 27, 2021, a copy of the record and counsel’s brief were delivered 

to appellant and appellant was notified of the right to file a pro se response. See 

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); In re D.E.S., 135 

S.W.3d at 329–30. More than twenty-five days have elapsed and as of this date, no 

pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the 

appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in 

the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the 

state.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

/s/ Jerry Zimmerer

Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Zimmerer and Wilson.
#### Lodell PARKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Armentris PARKS, Respondent-Respondent.

No. 55564.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Aug. 8, 1989.

Margaret Bush Wilson, St. Louis, for appellant.

John D. Schneider, St. Louis, for respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Husband appeals from the trial court’s order setting aside a previous order releasing an appeal bond. We affirm. No error of law appears, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
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-2018-0025-6840

Fortress Downhole Tools: 

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/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September_2019.pdf. 

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 exclusion notice. The scope of the exclusion is governed by the scope of the 10-digit HTSUS 

subheadings and product descriptions in the annex to the product exclusion notice, and not by the 

product descriptions set out in any particular request for exclusion. 

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
EXHIBIT 15.1
 
 Consent of Independent registered public accounting firm
  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form F-3 (Registration No. 333-160683) and the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333- 158476, 333-96630, 333-132649, 333-123410, 333-113932, 333-08826, 333-10092, 333-12466 and 333-12988) of our reports dated April 1, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Gilat Satellite Networks Ltd and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Gilat Satellite Networks Ltd. included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009.
 
 /s/ Kost Forer Gabbay and Kasierer



Kost Forer Gabbay and Kasierer

A Member of Ernst & Young Global
 
 Tel-Aviv, Israel
 April 1, 2010
ex101.htm












Royalty Grant












This is notice that FuLuCai Productions Ltd. (“FLC”) is, by this notice, granting a one half of one percent (.5%) royalty (the “Royalty”) to Douglas MacLeod, subject to the following terms and conditions:







The Royalty:








	
1.  

	
applies only to the reality-show concept known as The Real Deal;








	
2.  

	
applies only as long as The Real Deal is wholly owned by FLC;








	
3.  

	
is calculated based on broadcast licensing revenues only; and








	
4.  

	
is payable annually in arrears.

















Signed in Calgary, this 14th. day of April, 2010.












FuLuCai Productions Ltd.


Per:


/s/ James Durward


James Durward


President
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-2018-0025-7386

Nissan North 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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
ACCEPTED12-13-00032-CRTWELFTH COURT OF APPEALSTYLER, TEXAS1/23/2015 4:43:37 PMCATHY LUSKCLERK
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 81 (Thursday, April 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 18411]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10272]



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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of Justice Programs
National Institute of Justice
[OJP (NIJ) No.1077]
RIN 1121-ZA32


National Institute of Justice Reissue of a Solicitation for an 
Assessment of the HIDTA Program: High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 
National Institute of Justice.

ACTION: Announcement of the availability of the National Institute of 
Justice Reissue of a Solicitation for an Assessment of the HIDTA 
Program: High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas.

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

ADDRESSES: National Institute of Justice, 633 Indiana Avenue, NW., 
Washington, D.C. 20531.

DATES: The deadline for receipt of proposals is close of business on 
June 4, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Trudeau at (202) 307-1355, 
National Institute of Justice, 633 Indiana Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20531.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following supplementary information is 
provided:

Authority

    This action is authorized under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
Streets Act of 1968, sections 201-203, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 3721-3723 
(1988).

Background

    High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA's) are areas 
identified as having the most critical drug trafficking problems that 
adversely impact the rest of the country. The Director of the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy designates areas as HIDTA's pursuant to 
the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, as amended. In 1990, five areas were 
designated as HIDTA's--Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New York City, and 
the Southwest Border, which extends from California through Texas.
    The National Institute of Justice is soliciting proposals to 
conduct an assessment of the HIDTA program in the five original sites. 
Funding for this award is tentatively set at $200,000. Interested 
organizations should call the National Criminal Justice Reference 
Service (NCJRS) at 1-800-851-3420 to obtain a copy of ``National 
Institute of Justice Solicitation for an Evaluation of the HIDTA 
Program: High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas'' (refer to document no. 
SL000143). The solicitation is available electronically via the NCJRS 
Bulletin Board, which can be accessed via Internet. Telnet to 
ncjrsbbs.aspensys.com, or gopher to ncjrs.aspensys.com 71. For World 
Wide Web access, connect to the NCJRS Justice Information Center at 
http://www.ncjrs.org. Those without Internet access can dial the NCJRS 
Bulletin Board via modem: dial 301-738-8895. Set modem at 9600 baud, 8-
N-1.
Jeremy Travis,
Director, National Institute of Justice.
[FR Doc. 96-10272 Filed 4-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-18-P
#### Damon ALEXANDER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 48327.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 1, 1994.

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

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Becky Owenson Kilpatrick, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before TURNAGE, P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and HANNA, JJ.

*322
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Defendant appeals from the dismissal of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentia-ry hearing.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
**Exhibit32**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. §1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

TerryG. 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 Actof 2002, that to the best of his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of CornerstoneCore Properties REIT, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the three -month period ended June30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition andresults of operations of  CornerstoneCore Properties REIT, Inc.
|                             | /s/ TERRY G.  ROUSSEL                                  |   |
|-----------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date:  August 10, 2007 | Terry G. Roussel                                       |   |
|                        | Chief Executive  Officer (Principal Executive Officer) |   |
|                             |                                                        |        |  |

 
|                             | /s/ SHARON C.  KAISER                                  |   |
|-----------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date:  August 10, 2007 | Sharon C. Kaiser                                       |   |
|                        | Chief Financial  Officer (Principal Financial Officer) |   |
|                             |                                                        |        |  |

 

----
Mo._ (to TU^ _,cwm-T op _/iitMi*;<xl A^PP^Ms FILED IN FILED IN 

### COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS ^VU**/^ Lv( vo*) "Tttvftd o

£ASSORTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS SEP 112015 ^ SEP 112015

.a t9 riflrk "^^ STrVTT Af Tc^cs Abel Acosta, ClerK Abe| Acosta c|Qrk RECEIVED!!^ -ra-i«-i Cav4_ ^o.U^sfr-'Vx-tsfccitjU.<-*-<•< COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS
- SEP 04 2015 '

_> \*s 

### »Sta,Gif%L_4 i^Ho^ Rw- ^___rg^w<^ JP ~Ti_^g- "To Pi (c —fo Tl4£ rto«^o^^^(c.. 0~A «j -f1 "1W<. C«m^V oF C^vmih/^I «%«*"• 

## tf FJeJ +U\i U-^4^ fow. o* _^-J»N 0-^ J«^y60^ R._.v/lc_n*) . l«_^ vi s/^/»w4 /•£ 4Uv_ inv^^o af/»c(^o-4- ^ K\ivw-j 4 Uq, CO^«-V 4-Wc_ T0 1U«J»v«j; I



### ~"|Tve, ^e l~«4(We»L W^.S C~bv^viL^*J v -V -V^<L_

_________ 0<i4t/LvL-t- £_0v/,_-L o^ P^o-f^e C^v^/Tcscoj 0-f +k o-fltte-*^ Ot__:

_ inj Lov^e. Wo. ' , j+Yfcer ^4-o-4c -•£ ~/«^«*^ «^5.. ^«>/+^*~y L_y«*/<^ TX^^J**^. 

### ^P^i^t UuJ ^ri-fM.»_4-. TUt tc]t v_^j oW*A-iA*4.cj 

## Jo/yr____l'f c ^

### «^-^4v,_ 0.^ ^V4tk/0 "fAcL cte~t(t~< ^^ f?(<-y + *C ft^-rf^v/ -N^- l)'ru(/u)^0(l /<r _-<c v_ , ^ Co^)<- *">yv ., * -/^vl"/* *w /Lev****'/ UoJ , , *L _r^i/ (.CIAM6-^. 

## ^a ^/j/ ^V '
#### Jack Lee HAMILTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 41349.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Sept. 19, 1989.

Joseph H. Locascio, Sp. Public Defender, Daniel C. Miller, Asst. Sp. Public Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SHANGLER, P.J., and TURNAGE and KENNEDY, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Appeal from denial, after evidentiary hearing, of Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### Nemi HARRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 56182.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Jan. 9, 1990.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Feb. 14, 1990.

Application to Transfer Denied April 17, 1990.

Beverly A. Beimdiek, Cheryl Rafert, St. Louis, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., John P. Pollard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

GARY M. GAERTNER, Presiding Judge.

Movant, Nemi Harris, appeals the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion after an evidentia-ry hearing. Movant pled guilty to two' counts of second degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment and a consecutive term of fifteen years. In this appeal, movant claims that the motion court erred in finding his plea voluntary in that it was made while movant was under the influence of thorazine and in denying his motion based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm.

In reviewing claims for postconviction relief, this court’s review is limited to determining whether the findings, conclusions and judgment of the motion court are clearly erroneous. *Sanders v. State,*738 S.W.2d 856, 857 (Mo. banc 1987). These findings are clearly erroneous when a review of the entire record leaves this court with a definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made. *Richardson v. State,*719 S.W.2d 912, 915 (Mo.App., E.D. 1986).

Movant first claims that his plea was involuntary because it was made while he was taking thorazine. At the evidentiary hearing, both the State and the defendant presented evidence regarding the effect of thorazine on the movant's ability to understand the guilty plea proceedings. The motion court found that the State’s witness *565was “very persuasive on the effects of thorazine” and concluded that “the thora-zine did not interfere with the voluntariness and intelligence of the movant’s plea of guilty.” Movant claims that the motion court erred in believing the State’s witness as opposed to his own. The motion court is not required to believe the testimony of a witness. *Davis v. State,*748 S.W.2d 698, 700 (Mo.App., E.D.1988). Here, the motion court determined that the testimony of movant’s witness was not credible. This court must defer to the motion court’s determination of credibility. *Id.*at 700. Point denied.

Movant next claims that his counsel was ineffective. We have reviewed these allegations, the record on which they are based, and the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. We find that the court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. No precedential value would be served by expounding on the basis for this determination. Rule 84.16(b).

Affirmed.

REINHARD and CRIST, JJ., concur.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 22, 2018

No. 04-17-00118-CR

Roxanne Y. CHAVEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR0769

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The State filed its brief on December 29, 2017; Appellant’s reply brief is due on January 

18, 2018. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(c). Before the due date, Appellant filed a motion for 

extension of time to file the reply brief until January 22, 2018.

Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. See id. R. 38.6(d). Appellant’s reply brief is due on 

January 22, 2018.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of January, 2018.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court