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 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-6172

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
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5283 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 4, 2023 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to provide housing 

to specified aliens on any land under the administrative 

jurisdiction of the Federal land management agencies. 

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

2 

HR 5283 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting our Com3 munities from Failure to Secure the Border Act of 2023’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON PROVIDING HOUSING TO SPECI5 FIED ALIENS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—No Federal funds may be used 

7 to provide housing to specified aliens on any land under 

8 the administrative jurisdiction of the Federal land man9 agement agencies, including through leases, contracts, or 

10 agreements. 

11 (b) REVOCATION OF LEASE.—The lease between the 

12 United States of America/United States Department of 

13 the Interior/National Park Service and the City of New 

14 York for the Premises known as Portions of Floyd Ben15 nett Field, in the Jamaica Bay Unit of Gateway National 

16 Recreation Area (NPS Lease# L–GATE912–2023, Com17 mencement Date - September 15, 2023) is hereby revoked. 

18 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

19 (1) FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCIES.— 

20 The term ‘‘Federal land management agencies’’ 

21 means the National Park Service, the Bureau of 

22 Land Management, the United States Fish and 

23 Wildlife Service, and the Forest Service. 

24 (2) HOUSING.—The term ‘‘housing’’ means a 

25 temporary or permanent encampment used for the 

26 primary purpose of sheltering specified aliens. 

3 

HR 5283 RFS

1 (3) SPECIFIED ALIEN.—The term ‘‘specified 

2 alien’’ means an alien who has not been admitted, 

3 as such terms are defined in section 101(a) of the 

4 Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

5 1101(a)). 

6 SEC. 3. REPORT. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior and 

8 the Secretary of Agriculture shall jointly submit to the ap9 propriate congressional committees an annual report that 

10 includes— 

11 (1) the number of specified aliens that have 

12 been provided housing on any land under the admin13 istrative jurisdiction of the Federal land manage14 ment agencies; and 

15 (2) information regarding the countries of ori16 gin of such specified aliens. 

17 (b) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘appro18 priate congressional committees’’ means— 

19 (1) the Committee on Natural Resources and 

20 the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Rep21 resentatives; and 

4 

HR 5283 RFS

1 (2) the Committee on Energy and Natural Re2 sources and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutri3 tion, and Forestry of the Senate. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 30, 

2023. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

__________________________ 

IN RE KEVIN PATRICK BRADY, 

Petitioner. 

__________________________ 

Miscellaneous Docket No. 140

__________________________ 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United 

States Court of Federal Claims in case no. 12-CV-0373, 

Judge Lawrence J. Block. 

__________________________ 

ON MOTION

__________________________ 

PER CURIAM. 

O R D E R

Kevin Patrick Brady, pro se, petitions for a writ of 

mandamus. We consider whether Brady’s petition should 

be construed as a notice of appeal. He also moves for leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis.

Brady filed a complaint in the United States Court of 

Federal Claims seeking a tax refund and other relief. The 

court dismissed his suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Brady filed a motion for reconsideration that was 

denied by the Court of Federal Claims. We received this 

Case: 12-140 Document: 5 Page: 1 Filed: 04/10/2013
IN RE KEVIN BRADY 2

petition within the time to appeal from the Court of Federal 

Claims' decision. 

In order to appeal a judgment of the United States 

Court of Federal Claims, the party seeking appeal must file 

notice that sets forth (1) the name of each party to the 

proceeding, (2) the judgment, order, or part, thereof being 

appealed, and (3) the name of the court to which the appeal 

is taken. Fed. R. App. P. 3(c). Brady’s petition clearly 

meets these requirements. In addition, his petition is 

timely if treated as a notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(1)(B).

Because we conclude that the petition should be construed as a timely notice of appeal, mandamus relief is not 

appropriate. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Southern Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989) (holding that a 

party seeking a writ bears the burden of proving that it has 

no other means of attaining the relief, such as by appeal); 

Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 383

(1953) (stating “whatever may be done without the writ 

may not be done with it.”).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied because the matter is treated as a notice of appeal. The 

clerk is directed to docket the case as an appeal. 

(2) The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

is granted and thus requirement of payment of the fee in 

the appeal is waived. 

Case: 12-140 Document: 5 Page: 2 Filed: 04/10/2013
3 IN RE KEVIN BRADY

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

s26

Case: 12-140 Document: 5 Page: 3 Filed: 04/10/2013
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09

- 7490

ROBERT HENRY DAVIS ,

Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,

Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Peter J. Messitte , Senior District Judge. ( 8:09

- cv - 01720

- PJM )

Submitted : November 17, 2009 Decided: November 25, 2009

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Robert Henry Davis, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2

PER CURIAM:

Robert H. Davis appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his action seeking correction of his presentence
investigation report, pursuant to the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C.

§ 552a(d)(2) (2006), as well as its order denying his motion for

reconsideration of that dismissal. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the

district court’s orders. See Davis v. United States , No. 8:09

-

cv - 01720

- PJM (D. Md. July 10, 2009; filed July 29, 2009

& entered July 30, 2 009). We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argume nt would not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19577]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9595]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP95-315-000]


K N Interstate Gas Transmission Co.; Notice of Request Under 
Blanket Authorization

April 13, 1995.
    Take notice that on April 11, 1995, K N Interstate Gas Transmission 
Co. (K N Interstate), P.O. Box 281304, Lakewood, Colorado 80228-8304, 
filed in Docket No. CP95-315-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205 
and 157.212 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act 
(18 CFR 157.205, 157.212) for authorization to install and operate a 
new delivery tap under K N Interstate's blanket certificate issued in 
Docket No. CP83-140-000, et al., pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural 
Gas Act, all as more fully set forth in the request that is on file 
with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    K N Interstate proposes to install and operate a new delivery tap 
in Hamilton County, Nebraska. The tap will be added as a delivery point 
under an existing transportation agreement between K N Interstate and K 
N Energy, Inc. (K N) and will be used by K N to facilitate the delivery 
of natural gas to a direct retail commercial customer.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-9595 Filed 4-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 186704]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9024]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs


Indian Gaming

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of approved Tribal/State compact.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 2710, of the Indian Gaming Regulatory 
Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-497), the Secretary of the Interior shall 
publish, in the Federal Register, notice of approved Tribal/State 
Compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class III (casino) gambling on 
Indian reservations. The Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs, 
Department of the Interior, through her delegated authority, has 
approved the Tribal/State Gaming Compact between the Port Gamble 
S'Klallam Tribe and the State of Washington, which was executed on 
January 26, 1995.

DATES: This action is effective April 12, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George T. Skibine, Director, Indian 
Gaming Management Staff, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, D.C. 
20240, (202) 219-4068.

    Dated: March 31, 1995.
Ada E. Deer,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 95-9024 Filed 4-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-P
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Kenneth BIRCH, Appellant. Kenneth BIRCH, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. WD 49348, WD 50812.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 16, 1996.

Jarrett Aiken Johnson, Assistant Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Assistant Attorney General, Kansas City, for respondent. ■

Before ULRICH, P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and SMITH, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Birch appeals his convictions for Robbery in the First Degree, section 569.020, RSMo Supp.1992, and Armed Criminal Action, section 571.015, RSMo Supp.1992; and the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. The appeals are consolidated.

' The judgment of conviction and the order denying the Rule 29.15 postconviction motion are affirmed. Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6044

Aisin World Corp. of America:

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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Sanchez, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Budd G. Goodman, J.), rendered on or about June 24, 1987, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of first and second degree robbery and of third degree burglary, and sentencing defendant to concurrent prison terms of from 4 to 12 years for each robbery count and from 2 to 6 years for third degree burglary, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305).

Furthermore, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms” *(People v Felman,*141 AD2d 889, 890, *Iv denied*72 NY2d 918). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19571]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9683]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[C-475-817]


Postponement of Final Countervailing Duty Determination: Oil 
Country Tubular Goods (``OCTG'') From Italy

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 19, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Wilkniss, Office of 
Countervailing Investigations, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room B099, 
14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; 
telephone: (202) 482-0588.

POSTPONEMENT: On December 23, 1994, we aligned the final countervailing 
duty determination in this investigation with the final antidumping 
duty determination in the companion antidumping investigation of OCTG 
from Italy (59 FR 66295).
    On February 15, 1995, we postponed the final antidumping 
determination in the companion antidumping investigation of OCTG from 
Italy until no later than June 19, 1995 (60 FR 8632).
    Therefore, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, as amended, the final countervailing duty determination in 
this investigation will also be postponed until no later than June 19, 
1995.
    The case briefs in this countervailing duty investigation are now 
due no later than May 2, 1995, and rebuttal briefs no later than May 7, 
1995. We will not hold a public hearing in this investigation, because 
none of the interested parties requested a hearing.
    This notice is published in accordance with 19 CFR 355.20(c)(3) 
(1994).

    Dated: April 13, 1995.
Barbara R. Stafford,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Investigations.
[FR Doc. 95-9683 Filed 4-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
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-2018-0025-6138

SA Recycling 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 failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

PETER R. BRINCKERHOFF, §

TRUSTEE OF THE PETER R. §

BRINCKERHOFF REV. TR. U/A § No. 534, 2017

DTD 10/17/97, on behalf of all others §

similarly situated, § Court Below: Court of Chancery

§ of the State of Delaware

Plaintiff Below, §

Appellant, § C.A. No. 2017-0313-JTL

§

v. §

§

KINDER MORGAN, INC., KINDER §

MORGAN ENERGY PARTNERS, §

L.P., RICHARD KINDER, STEVEN J. §

KEAN, RONALD L. KUEHN, JR., §

ARTHUR C. REICHSTETTER, and §

WILLIAM A. SMITH, §

§

Defendants Below, §

Appellees. §

§

Submitted: June 6, 2018

Decided: June 8, 2018

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and TRAYNOR, 

Justices; and RENNIE, Judge1constituting the Court en Banc.

O R D E R

This 8th day of June 2018, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Chancery 

on the basis of its order dated November 14, 2017.

2

 

1 Sitting by designation under Del. Const. art. IV § 12.

2

In re Brinckerhoff v. Kinder Morgan, Inc., 2017 WL 5483730 (Del.Ch. Nov. 14, 2017).
2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of 

Chancery is hereby AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice
Exhibit 10.28.1






Exhibit 10.28.1




Termination of Split Dollar Agreement and Endorsement




This Termination of Split Dollar Agreement and Endorsement (this “Agreement”) by and
between The Cortland Savings and Banking Company, an Ohio-chartered bank (the “Bank”), and Craig M.
Phythyon, an Officer of the Bank (the “Executive”), is made and entered into and shall be effective
as of this 12th day of February, 2010.



Whereas, the Bank and the Executive entered into an Amended Split Dollar Agreement
and Endorsement dated as of December 3, 2008 (the “Split Dollar Agreement and Endorsement”),



Whereas, the Bank and the Executive desire now to terminate the Split Dollar
Agreement and Endorsement, and



Whereas, the Bank and the Executive intend that from and after the effective date of
this Agreement the Split Dollar Agreement and Endorsement and the associated Split Dollar Policy
Endorsement or Endorsements shall be void and shall have no further force or effect.



Now Therefore, in consideration of these premises and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Bank and the
Executive hereby agree as follows.



1. Termination
of the Split Dollar Agreement and Endorsement. Effective as of the date first
written above, the Split Dollar Agreement and Endorsement is terminated and shall have no further
force or effect. Neither the Executive nor any beneficiary of the Executive shall make any claim
for benefits under the Split Dollar Agreement and Endorsement. Neither the Executive nor any
beneficiary of the Executive shall make any claim for benefits under the Split Dollar Policy
Endorsement or Endorsements appended to or associated with the Split Dollar Agreement and
Endorsement. The Split Dollar Policy Endorsement or Endorsements shall be void and of no further
force or effect as of the effective date of this Agreement. The Executive acknowledges and agrees
that the Bank shall be fully discharged from all liabilities or obligations under the Split Dollar
Agreement and Endorsement and the associated Split Dollar Policy Endorsement or Endorsements as of
the effective date of this Agreement.



2. Applicable Law. This Agreement and all rights hereunder shall be governed by the laws of
the State of Ohio, except to the extent preempted by the laws of the United States of America.



3. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the Bank and the
Executive concerning the subject matter.



In Witness Whereof, the Executive and a duly authorized officer of the Bank have
executed this Termination of Split Dollar Agreement and Endorsement as of the date first written
above.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Executive	 	The Cortland Savings and Banking Company
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Craig M. Phythyon
 


	 	By:	 	/s/ James Gasior
 

	 	 
	Craig M. Phythyon

	 	 
	 	Its: President & CEO