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-2018-0025-5200

United Scope 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 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/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_05.09.19.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product 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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
3XEOLF9HUVLRQRI%&,

380392/87(&$67,1*35(6685(&217$,1,1*6667$,1/(6667((/



3,$==$52%(57

35,&(3803&203$1<

2WKHU

12

3XEOLF9HUVLRQRI%&,


<(6

12

 .*

 .*

,03257,1*7+,63$57)520&+,1$&2676

385&+$6,1*5$:0$7(5,$/$1'0$&+,1,1*,7'20(67,&$//<&267
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-2018-0025-2515

Curtis Instruments, 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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Karen White, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker J.), rendered April 25, 1989, convicting her of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was found in possession of two guns. She claimed that the guns had been placed into her handbag without her knowledge and that the possession was involuntary. The court gave a knowing possession charge that took into account the defendant’s alleged involuntary possession. Under the circumstances, the charge given by the trial court was proper. The charge unquestionably conveyed to the jurors the proper standard by which they were to judge the defendant’s guilt or innocence *(cf., People v Joyce,*157 AD2d 747).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions *747and find that they are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit *(see, People v Nuccie, 57*NY2d 818, 819; *People v Baldo,*107 AD2d 751, 752; *People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Lawrence, J. P., Kunzeman, Rubin and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Killbuck
Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lawrence Cardinal, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |                      
|----------------------- |  | ---------------------
|By:                     |  | /s/ Lawrence Cardinal
|Lawrence Cardinal      
|Chief Financial Officer
|May 11, 2011           

A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Killbuck Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by Killbuck Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. CORY JOHN ALTMAN, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 341 WAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 18th day of November, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 23, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-51135

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

VICENTE HERNANDEZ-ENRIQUEZ,

also known as Rafael Guzman-Bustamante,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-02-CR-715-ALL

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Vicente Hernandez-Enriquez appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

He contends that the sentence is invalid because it exceeds the

two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a). Hernandez-Enriquez complains that his sentence was

improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). He argues

that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional. 
No. 02-51135

-2-

Alternatively, Hernandez-Enriquez contends that 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He

argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased

sentence was an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Hernandez-Enriquez acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed

by Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 62 (Friday, March 31, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 16621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7860]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Institute of Standards and Technology


Prospective Grant of Exclusive Patent License

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of prospective grant of exclusive patent license.

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

SUMMARY: This is notice in accordance with 35 USC 209(c)(1) and 37 CFR 
404.7(a)(1)(i) that the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
(``NIST''), U.S. Department of Commerce, is contemplating the grant of 
an exclusive license in all microgravity and space related research 
including, but not limited to the Space Shuttle, the MIR Space Station, 
the US Space Station, orbital re-entry vehicles, sounding rockets and 
low ``g'' research aircraft, to practice the invention embodied in U.S. 
Patent Number 5,104,478, titled, ``Method For Making Single Crystals'' 
to Instrumentation Technology Associates, Inc., having a place of 
business in Exton, Pennsylvania. The patent rights in this invention 
have been assigned to the United States of America.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bruce E. Mattson, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 
Technology Development and Small Business Program, Building 221, Room 
B-256, Gaithersburg, MD 20852.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The prospective exclusive license will be 
royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 
U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be 
granted unless, within sixty days from the date of this published 
Notice, NIST receives written evidence and argument which establish 
that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the 
requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
    U.S. Patent Number 5,104,478 is a method for making single 
crystals, comprising osmotically removing the solvent from a solution 
containing the material to be grown into a crystal.
    The availability of the invention for licensing was published in 
the Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 158 (August 14, 1992). A copy of the 
patent application may be obtained from NIST at the foregoing address.

    Dated: March 22, 1995.
Samuel Kramer,
Associate Director.
[FR Doc. 95-7860 Filed 3-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-13-M
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-50295 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARIA DIAZ, also known as Maria

Luz Lucio De La Cruz,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-98-CR-973-ALL

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

October 19, 1999

Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Maria Diaz appeals from her jury conviction for importing a

quantity of marijuana and possessing with intent to distribute a

quantity of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 952, and 

960. The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the district

court erred in allowing the prosecutor to cross examine a defense

witness with the fact that she was in jail on a misdemeanor

prostitution charge.

This court reviews the admission of evidence for abuse of 
No. 99-50295 

-2-

discretion. United States v. Skipper, 74 F.3d 608, 612 (5th Cir.

1996). Furthermore, even if this court finds an abuse of

discretion in the admission or exclusion of evidence, the error

is reviewed under the harmless-error doctrine. Id. Under that

doctrine, the court "must affirm evidentiary rulings unless they

affect a substantial right of the complaining party." Id. “An

error is harmless if the reviewing court is sure, after viewing

the entire record, that the error did not influence the jury or

had a very slight effect on its verdict.” United States v.

Rodriguez, 43 F.3d 117, 123 (5th Cir. 1995).

The court has carefully reviewed the record and concludes

that the admission of the challenged testimony, whether or not

erroneous, was harmless. In light of the overwhelming evidence

of Diaz’s guilt, there is not a significant possibility that the

challenged testimony would have had a substantial effect on the

jury. See United States v. Sanchez-Sotelo, 8 F.3d 202, 210 (5th

Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly  Report of B Green Innovations, Inc. Inc. (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended June 30, 2014, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certify, pursuant  to and solely for thepurpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best ofmy knowledge:

 

1.  	TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

 

2.  	Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company.

 

 

 

Date:        August22, 2014                                                             By: */s/ Jerome Mahoney*                                     

JeromeMahoney

President,Chief Executive Officer and

ChiefFinancial Officer
Exhibit 15.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-127340 and 333-164696) of our report dated May 2, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Magal Security Systems Ltd. included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.




/s/ Kost Forer Gabbay & KasiererTel-Aviv, Israel
KOST FORER GABBAY & KASIERERMay 2, 2010
A Member of Ernst & Young Global
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

August 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5774

Alo Tennessee 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 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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 58 (Monday, March 27, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15797-15798]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7486]




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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration


Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), Title IV-D, Demonstration 
Program: Diversity in Apprenticeship; Correction

AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, DOL.

ACTION: Correction.

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

SUMMARY: In notice document FR Doc. 95-6660 beginning on page 14454 in 
the issue of Friday, March 17, 1995, make the following 
correction: [[Page 15798]] 
    On page 14454, second column, DATES: The closing date for receipt 
of applications was left out inadvertently. This should read: DATES: 
Applications for grant awards will be accepted commencing March 17, 
1995. The closing date for receipt of applications is May 1, 1995, 2 
p.m., (Eastern Time) at the address below.

    Dated: March 21, 1995.
Janice E. Perry
Grant Officer, Division of Acquisition and Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-7486 Filed 3-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Andre JACKSON, Appellant. Andre JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 65165, 68077.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Oct. 17, 1995.

Douglas R. Hoff, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David G. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered on his conviction by jury of burglary in the first degree. Defendant also appeals the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We have reviewed the briefs and record of the case and find defendant’s arguments are without merit. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by an extended written opinion. The judgments are affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
#### Darris WHITE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 48416.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 7, 1995.

As Modified Feb. 28, 1995.

Laura G. Martin, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

*348Before SPINDEN, P.J., and ULRICH and SMART, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Darns White appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion.

The judgment denying the Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5508

Tianhai Electric North 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 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
Unassociated Document


Exhibit 10.1












Laura Brandt







September 8, 2010







Dear Laura:







We are pleased to confirm our offer of the position of Vice President, General Counsel with SYMS Corp.  In this capacity you will report directly to Marcy Syms, CEO with a dotted line to Seth Udasin, SVP, CFO.  Please review the following employment arrangements:








	
Start date:

	  	
October 5, 2010.


	  	  	  
	
Base Compensation:

	  	
An annualized salary of $250,000.00, paid through bi-weekly payroll periods.


	  	  	  
	
Car Allowance:

	  	
You will receive an annual car allowance of $6,000, paid through bi-weekly payroll periods.


	  	  	  
	
Incentive compensation:

	  	
You will eligible to participate in the annual Management Incentive Plan (MIP) with a 30% Target award; the goals are to be established.  This will be payable according to Plan criteria after the fiscal year-end results.  Any award earned for the current fiscal year performance will be pro-rated following 60 days employment.  We will discuss the details of this program upon employment.


	  	  	  
	
Vacation:

	  	
You will receive 15 days vacation beginning January 1, 2011.


	  	  	  
	
Benefits:

	
  

	
Your benefits will include those normally accorded exempt salaried co-workers of SYMS Corp.  A benefits package will be sent to you under separate cover.  We will review your benefits plan upon your start date.  However, if you have any questions prior please feel free to contact me at (201) 902-9600, ext 166.












In accordance with the Immigration and Naturalization Reform and Control Act of 1986, our offer is contingent upon completion of the verification procedure.  Attached please find a list of acceptable identification that must be presented during your orientation.







This offer in no way changes your status as an at-will employee as set forth in our Co-worker Handbook.  Please fax the signed acceptance to (201) 902-9270.  If I can answer any questions please feel free to call me.







Sincerely,





Ann M. Keefe


Senior Vice President, Operations








	
Accepted:  

	
     /s/ Laura Brandt

	  	
Date:  

	
9/10/2010


	  	
        Laura Brandt

	  	  	  











	
SYMS Corp

	
One Syms Way, Secaucus, NJ 07094

	
(201) 902-9600


	  	
WWW.SYMS.COM