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-2018-0025-5082

A.W. Chesterton Company:

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
exmo_ex103.htm


Exhibit 10.3

MUTUAL AGREEMENT 

 









THIS MUTUAL AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) dated December 1, 2008  is by and between David Bychkov (“Bychkov”), Cheyenne Crow (“Crow”) and Robert Doornick (“Doornick”, Doornick, Bychkov and Crow are each a “Party” and collectively referred to as “Parties”).  This Agreement will be effective upon completion of the Purchase as hereinafter defined (the “Effective Date”).







WHEREAS, Bychkov owns directly or indirectly through his companies, Exmocare, LLC, Exmovere LLC and Exmogate LLC (collectively, the “Exmocare Companies”) certain intellectual property (the “Intellectual Property”);







WHEREAS, Crow agreed to contribute to test and develop the Intellectual Property in partnership with government agencies, in return for $1.5 Million per year in equity (such amount due being referred to as the “Obligation to Crow”), should the Intellectual Property ever be purchased by a public company;







WHEREAS Crow has performed his part of the bargain and either acted as a consultant to or has been employed by one of the Exmocare Companies since January 2004;







WHEREAS, Robert Doornick agreed to contribute to the design and development of the Intellectual Property, in return for earning $150,000 per year in equity (such amount due being referred to as the “Obligation to Doornick”, the Obligation to Doornick along with the Obligation to Crow shall be collectively known as the “Obligations) should the Intellectual Property ever be owned by a public company;







WHEREAS, Robert Doornick has performed his part of the bargain and made a substantial contribution to the development and/or marketing of the Intellectual Property since 2004;







WHEREAS, the Parties agree that the Intellectual Property would be better utilized if owned by a public company and the Parties along with others are seeking a method to go public;







NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as set forth below.







If any publicly owned company (the “Company”) purchases the Intellectual Property (the “Purchase”) whether owned by Bychkov and/or the Exmocare Companies in exchange for shares in the Company;








	
    ·      

	
Simultaneously with such Purchase, Bychkov shall distribute a portion of the shares that he receives in exchange for the Purchase to Crow in an amount sufficient to satisfy the Obligation to Crow to be calculated in a reasonable and mutually agreed manner on the date of the Purchase.













	
    ·      

	
Simultaneously with such Purchase, Bychkov shall distribute a portion of the shares that he receives in exchange for the Purchase to Doornick in an amount sufficient to satisfy the Obligation to Doornick to be calculated in a reasonable and mutually agreed manner on the date of the Purchase.







 




  





  











  






 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written, which Agreement may be signed in one or more counterparts, each of which when taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 68 (Monday, April 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 18096]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8679]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP95-219-000]

Texas Eastern Transmission Corp.; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

April 4, 1995.
    Take notice that on March 31, 1995, Texas Eastern Transmission 
Corporation (Texas Eastern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with a 
proposed effective date of May 1, 1995:

Original Sheet No. 230
Sheet Nos. 231-234

    Texas Eastern states that by this filing, it proposes to grant, 
effective May 1, 1995, customers under Rate Schedule SCT enhanced 
transportation rights with respect to deliveries and receipts in Texas 
Eastern's Market Zones 1, 2 and 3. Texas Eastern proposes to add a new 
Section 9 to Rate Schedule SCT. These enhanced transportation rights 
are identical to the enhanced transportation rights granted by Texas 
Eastern to customers under Rate Schedules CDS and FT-1 in Docket No. 
RP94-357-000.
    Texas Eastern states that copies of the filing were served on firm 
customers of Texas Eastern and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426, in accordance with Secs. 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests should be filed on 
or before April 11, 1995. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-8679 Filed 4-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
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-2018-0025-5052

A.W. Chesterton Company:

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
**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

 

I, Mark Holcombe, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Blacksands Petroleum, Inc., for the fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in        the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Blacksands Petroleum, Inc.

 

| Date: September 14, 2009 | By: /s/ Mark Holcombe |
|--------------------------|-----------------------|

|   | Mark Holcombe, Principal Financial Officer |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

----
122 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

oQrrl6oa, 

OS Fnbllo 

8, but not rel th a t both ycur guertiorrr: l r6 cooQO 60 or th8 K0tOr wii0ie cdifit, being hue8 Bill RO. 407 Act6 

& iOh l >aarS 66 ArtiOb l&56 

Id4 Penal co60 or Terari BAaid a,- 

ad6 86 follcYwsr 
123 

Hon. 

tion 

rogisterod or liceme& under t2w lam6 OS 

ttlr Stat6 thaa 6iieotlr6, nor to notor 

vohloler owned or cpratrd by the 8oderal 

Government or any 0r it6 agonol66, the 

Stat0 of TeXa6, OT -1, EPnlOlp61 gOVOT6-, 

ment wh86 maoh aMOr retfole 16 8ald to 

a QW886 required Under thi6 AOt t0 proOUm l 06rfiiiC6t-O Oi titl., in Phiah 

went tha prorirlimr horeof 8h811 be full7 

oprratlw ao to 6uoh notor ~ahi010~~ 

ft 16 our oplnlon that tha abom p%ofad See 

60 a~~a~l~~ooont~sq~ata6 th$ ~0 +tifi+! Of 

Tit10 8hkt1 m 188Ue4 011 w WblClO wl.66 6UOE TOhi016 18 registeronb ia Tana. -0 iaet t&t 6 nhiole 

16 registered in rnothar 6t6t6, dO66 not or 8-86 

sake lt lnollglble ta bo regirtemd 6180 ia %X66. 

It ir our oplnlau that your deportmeat may aof'ls8t3e 

a Certlfloak, of Tit16 on euoh whlole registered ln 

aaothor state until it 16 al60 tlr6t rr~lsters~ la 

TQm6. 

?+RK;0b 

aY%nQQ 

Waltar. 8. gooh 

A8818t66t 

APPRCVEC~ 15, 1940 

APPROVED 

n 

OPINION 

*MMmFf 1.
#### In re the MARRIAGE OF Clydonna RIPPEE and Glendon Wade Rippee. Clydonna Rippee, Petitioner-Respondent, and Glendon Wade Rippee, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 18432.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two.

Sept. 28, 1993.

Richard D. Crites, Springfield, for petitioner-respondent.

John R. Lewis, Shari K. DeArmon, Law Offices of Lewis & Moon, Springfield, for respondent-appellant.

*494PER CURIAM.

Appellant contends the trial court erred in entering a dissolution decree which did not value the “interest in his retirement plan” and “erred in the formula it applied to the division of the ... pension plan”.

For his first point appellant contends the court erred in not assigning a value to appellant’s interest in the retirement plan. Appellant does not cite us to any part of the record showing that he requested the trial court to make a finding on the value of the retirement plan and we have discovered no such request. Unless a request is made, the trial court is not required to make specific findings as to the value of items of marital property. *In re Marriage of Harrison,*787 S.W.2d 738 (Mo.App.1989); *Burrus v. Burrus,*754 S.W.2d 882, 887 (Mo.App.1988).1

Appellant’s second point in full states, “The trial court erred in the formula it applied to the division of the respondent’s pension plan thereby apportioning a portion of same that was non-marital in nature to the petitioner.”

It is readily apparent, as respondent urges, that this point does not comply with the “wherein” and “why” requirements of Rule 84.04(d). Three things are required with respect to points relied on under that rule: (1) a statement of the action or ruling complained of; (2) why the ruling was erroneous; and (3) wherein the evidence supports the position the party asserts the trial court should have taken. *Carrier v. City of Springfield,*852 S.W.2d 196, 198 (Mo.App.1993). An insufficient “point relied on” preserves nothing for this court’s review. *Bentlage v. Springgate,*793 S.W.2d 228, 231 (Mo.App.1990).

As Point I has' no merit and Point II preserves nothing for this court’s review, the judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

1

. Appellant’s present counsel did not represent him at trial.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6241

BorgWarner, 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 concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999             MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998             JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0                   7,087
<SECURITIES>                                         0                     171
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                   8,064
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                     715
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                  16,385
<PP&E>                                               0                   4,314
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                   2,090
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0                  18,710
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                  16,101
<BONDS>                                              0                      57
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                      14
<COMMON>                                             0                      45
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                   2,493
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0                  18,710
<SALES>                                          7,298                  10,505
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,298                  10,505
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,995                   2,924
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,102                   7,379
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  53                       7
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (793)                     300
<INCOME-TAX>                                        40                     115
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (833)                     185
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (833)                     185
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.20)                     .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.20)                     .02


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nellie Tamayo, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.), rendered on February 17, 1989, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Ross, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.
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-2018-0025-5373

Whirlpool Corporation:

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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2260

Braeburn Systems LLC: 

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 published at 

83 FR 67463 (‘the exclusion notice’) and posted on the USTR website, at

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/2018-28277.pdf.

The scope of your exclusion is governed by the scope of the formal HTSUS product 

description in the Annex to the exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in 

any particular request for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted 

by excluding from the additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description 

contained in the Annex to the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Universal Truckload Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Donald B. Cochran, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Robert E. Sigler, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, respectively, that (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: August 6, 2007



/s/ Donald B. CochranDonald B. CochranPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Robert E. SiglerRobert E. SiglerVice President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not
being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Exhibit 13.1





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 Annual Report of Magal Security Systems Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Eitan Livneh, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.




Eitan Livneh*


Eitan Livneh


President and Chief Executive Officer





May 2, 2010




*           The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the Company’s offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.