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-2018-0025-6946

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
Opinion issued May 7, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-24-00286-CV

———————————

IN RE PS LPT PROPERTIES INVESTORS, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, PS LPT Properties Investors, has filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus challenging the trial court’s order denying relator’s motion to compel 

arbitration.1 We deny the petition.

1 The underlying case is Charles Santiago v. PS LPT Properties Investors, 

cause number 2023-33104, pending in the 133rd District Court of Harris

County, Texas, the Honorable Jaclanel McFarland presiding.
2

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Landau, and Hightower.
| | PricewaterhouseCoopers Audit63, rue de Villiers92208 Neuilly-sur-Seine CedexTéléphone 01 56 57 58 59Fax 01 56 57 58 60
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8(Nos. 333-145265, 333-136679, 333-128450, 333-118107, 333-118105, 333-118103, 333-109227, 333-104438, 333-99083, 333-91900, 333-75600, 333-70516, 333-12088, 333-9212,333-08910 and 333-12944) and on Form F-3 (Nos. 333-12872 and 333-12956) of AXA of ourreport dated April 29, 2008 relating to the consolidated financial statements, financial statementschedule and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in thisForm 20-F.

PricewaterhouseCoopers Audit

|Michael P. Nelligan | Eric Dupont
|------------------- | -----------

Neuilly-sur-Seine, FranceApril 30, 2008









Société d'expertise comptable inscrite au tableau de l'ordre de Paris - Ile de France  Strasbourg - Alsace  Lille - Nord Pas de Calais Lorraine  Lyon - Rhônes Alpes  Provence - Côte d'Azur - Corse  Pays de Loire  Rouen - Normandie  Toulouse - Midi Pyrénées.Société de commissariat aux comptes membre de la compagnie régionale de Versailles. Bureaux : Grenoble, Lille, Lyon, Marseille,Metz, Mulhouse, Nantes, Neuilly-sur-Seine, Rouen, Sophia Antipolis, Strasbourg, Toulouse.Société Anonyme au capital de 2 510 460 . RCS Nanterre B 672 006 483 - code APE 741 C - TVA n° FR 76 672 006 483Siret 672 006 483 00362 - Siège social : 63, rue de Villiers 92208 Neuilly-sur-Seine cedex.
**Nascent Wine Company Enters Exclusive Distribution Agreement with Miller Beer.**

Henderson, Nevada – May 3, 2006 -- Nascent Wine Company (OTCBB:NCTW) announced today it has acquired the exclusive Miller Beer Distribution rights for Baja California, Mexico, from Baja Miller, a distributor of Miller Beer in Baja California Mexico. 

Markets served by the new exclusive Miller Beer rights include: Tijuana, Mexicali, Rosarito, Ensenada, La Paz and Cabo San Lucas.

The acquisition of the Miller Beer rights is the first deal of its kind for Nascent; however, there are a number of other beverage and food distributors that Nascent will be targeting in the Baja Mexico region.

“Nascent’s acquisition of the Miller Beer rights positions us as a market leader with a premium brand, and we look forward to the additional resources and support provided by Nascent as a US public company,” said Sandro Piancone, President of Nascent’s newly-formed Mexican subsidiary, Best Beer Distributing.

In addition, Sandro Piancone and Victor Petrone will be appointed as directors of Nascent.

Mr. Piancone has been in the foodservice industry since 1986. In April 1998 he joined Roma Exporting, a food supplier to Mexico, as vice president of sales and marketing. From January 2000 to February 2002, he served as President of E-Food Depot, Inc. USA. In February 2002 he joined his family’s food distribution company, Piancone Group International, where he served as it’s Vice President of Sales before becoming CEO in June 2004. He is fluent in English, Italian and Spanish and well acquainted with the food service in market in Mexico, Europe and the USA.

 

Mr. Petrone has been in the foodservice industry since 1983. He is a Graduate of The Wharton School of Business; University of Pennsylvania and is also fluent in English, Italian and Spanish. 

**About Nascent Wine Company, Inc.**

Nascent Wine Company, Inc. is charting a course to become one of the up- and-coming leaders in the beverage and food industry in Mexico. The company plans to continue acquiring small- to medium-sized beverage and food distributors in Mexico. The company trades on the OTC Bulletin Board, ticker symbol NCTW.OB.

This press release includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause actual results, performance or achievements of the Company to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. 

Such factors include failure to complete successfully the development of new or enhanced products, the Company's future capital needs, the success of competitive products, fluctuations in costs, changes in consumer preferences and other items described in the Company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings. 

For further information contact:

TEN Associates

Tom E. Nelson, (480) 326-8577
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Paul HUBBARD, Defendant/Appellant. Paul HUBBARD, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Nos. 65530, 67893.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 20, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 2, 1996.

Deborah B. Wafer, District Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Christine M. Blegen, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and DOWD, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals after he was convicted by a jury of one count of first degree assault, § 565.050, RSMo 1986. The court sentenced him as a class X offender to a twenty-five year prison term. Defendant also appeals the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his 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 judg*266ment 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
10.4

    


    MINQUEST
INC.

     

    Option
Amendment Agreement

     

    BETWEEN:

    


    MINQUEST, INC. (“MINQUEST”) a
body incorporated pursuant to the laws of Nevada. (The “Optionor”)

    


    AND

    TUFFNELL LTD (“TUFFNELL”) a
body incorporated pursuant to the laws of Nevada. (The "Optionee")

     

    This
amendment to the Option agreement dated March 12, 2010 is to extend the date of
first payment by the Optionee to the Optionor as follows:

    


    Tuffnell Ltd shall make its first
payment to Minquest Inc. of  US $39,261.00 on of before April 30,
2010, instead of on signing the option agreement.

    


    All other
conditions shall remain the same and the scope of the agreement will remain in
its entirety other than extending the timeline condition as outline
above.

    


    Dated the
27th day of April, 2010

    


    The
Optionee:

    


    Tuffnell
Ltd.

    


    
      
        
          	
                  /s/
      George Dory

                
	
                   

                
	
                  George
      Dory,  ASO

                


        

      

    

    


    The
Optionor:

    


    MinQuest
Inc.

    


    
      
        
          	
                  /s/
      Richard Kern

                
	
                   

                
	
                  Richard
      Kern ASO
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 55 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to enhance criminal penalties for 

health related stalking, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2023 

Ms. JACKSON LEE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to enhance criminal 

penalties for health related stalking, 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 ‘‘Preventing Vigilante 

5 Stalking that Stops Women’s Access to Healthcare and 

6 Abortion Rights Act of 2022’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 55 IH

1 SEC. 2. OBTAINING OR INTERFERING WITH THE PERSONAL 

2 HEALTHCARE DECISIONS OF A WOMAN. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 110A of title 18, United 

4 States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2261B 

5 the following: 

6 ‘‘§ 2261C. Enhanced penalty for health related stalk7 ing 

8 ‘‘If a person commits an offense under section 2261A 

9 with the intent to obtain healthcare information of an indi10 vidual or to prevent the healthcare decisions of an indi11 vidual, the person may be imprisoned for up to 3 years, 

12 in addition to any term of imprisonment imposed for that 

13 offense under section 2261A.’’. 

14 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

15 for chapter 110A of title 18, United States Code, is 

16 amended by inserting after the item relating to section 

17 2261B the following: 

‘‘2261C. Enhanced penalty for health related stalking.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT


TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Juma Technology, Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony
M. Servidio, the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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.




/s/ Anthony M.
  ServidioAnthony
      M. Servidio
              Chief
      Executive Officer and
              Chairman




November
12, 2009
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SALVADOR DIAZ-HILARIO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-72383

Agency No. A092-234-068

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 17, 2012** 

Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Salvador Diaz-Hilario, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s removal order. We dismiss the petition for review.

FILED

JUL 24 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-72383

Diaz-Hilario does not challenge the agency’s finding that he is removable

for having committed a controlled substance offense. Accordingly, we lack

jurisdiction to review Diaz-Hilario’s order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(a)(2)(C); Bermudez v. Holder, 586 F.3d 1167, 1169 (9th Cir. 2009) (per

curiam). 

We lack jurisdiction to grant Diaz-Hilario bond or order his release. See 8

U.S.C. § 1226(c)(2) (the Attorney General may authorize release after certain

procedures are followed). 

We also lack jurisdiction to consider Diaz-Hilario’s unexhausted claim that

he was not informed of the immigration consequences of his no-contest plea in

California criminal court. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.

2004).

Diaz-Hilario’s May 17, 2012, motion for a bond hearing is dismissed for

failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Leonardo v. Crawford, 646

F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir. 2011) (“If [petitioner] is dissatisfied with the BIA’s

decision, he may then file a habeas petition in the district court, challenging his

continued detention. The district court’s decision on the habeas petition may be

appealed to this court.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5528 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5528

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To require the Director of the Office of Management and Budget conduct 
   a review to determine the impact of the lowest price technically 
acceptable source selection process on national security, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Safe and Smart Federal Purchasing 
Act''.

SEC. 2. REVIEW TO DETERMINE THE IMPACT OF THE LOWEST PRICE TECHNICALLY 
              ACCEPTABLE SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS ON NATIONAL SECURITY.

    (a) Review.--The Director shall review the procurement management 
practices of Defense and Civilian agencies to determine whether the 
provisions of section 15.101-2 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation 
have created any national security risk.
    (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the enactment of this 
Act, the Director shall submit a report on the results of the review 
under subsection (a) to--
            (1) the Committee on Oversight and Accountability of the 
        House of Representatives; and
            (2) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
        Affairs of the Senate.
    (c) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Defense and civilian agency.--The term ``Defense and 
        Civilian agency'' has the meaning given the term ``agency'' in 
        section 133 of title 41, United States Code.
            (2) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
        the Office of Management and Budget.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 29, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5528

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To require the Director of the Office of Management and Budget conduct 
   a review to determine the impact of the lowest price technically 
acceptable source selection process on national security, and for other 
                               purposes.
```
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-2018-0025-6805

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
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 77 (Friday, April 21, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19888-19889]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9882]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[I.D. 041095A]

Marine Mammals

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Issuance of scientific research permit No. 951 (P580).

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Carole A. Conway, 407 Garces 
Drive, San Francisco, CA 94132, has been issued a permit to import two 
blue whale skin samples Balaenoptera musculus) (approximate weight 100-
200 mg) for purposes of scientific research.

ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review 
upon written request or by appointment, in the following offices:

Permits Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West 
Highway, Room 13130, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/713-2289); and
Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, #4200, Long Beach, CA 
90802-4213 (310/980-4015).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 23, 1995, notice was published 
in the Federal Register (60 FR 10067) that a request for a scientific 
research permit to import blue whale skin samples had been submitted by 
the above-named individual. The requested permit has been issued under 
the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended 
(16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the Regulations Governing the Taking and 
Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the 
Regulations Governing Endangered Species Permits (50 CFR parts 217-
222).
    Issuance of this permit as required by the ESA was based on a 
finding that [[Page 19889]] such permit: (1) Was applied for in good 
faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered 
species which is the subject of this permit; and (3) is consistent with 
the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

    Dated: April 14, 1995.
Ann D. Terbush,
Chief, Permits and Documentation Division, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 95-9882 Filed 4-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
```
#### Larry BEAL, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.

No. 55635.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Aug. 8, 1989.

*568Cathy R. Kelly, St. Louis, for movant-ap-pellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., William J. Swift, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent-respondent.

ORDER

Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, 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).
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5593 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5593

To amend the Trade Act of 1974 to exempt from the Generalized System of 
       Preferences certain tire articles, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 20, 2023

Mr. Higgins of New York (for himself and Mr. Westerman) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Trade Act of 1974 to exempt from the Generalized System of 
       Preferences certain tire articles, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. EXCLUSION OF IMPORT-SENSITIVE TIRE ARTICLES.

    Section 503(b)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2463(b)(1)) 
is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subparagraph (G) as subparagraph (H); 
        and
            (2) by inserting after subparagraph (F) the following new 
        subparagraph:
                    ``(G) Import-sensitive tire articles.''.
                                 <all>
```