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-2018-0025-5760

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 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
**EXHIBIT 23.2****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8(File Nos. 333-50137, 333-90293, 333-56606, 333-89184, 333-102147, 333-105193, 333-106594 and333-126121) and the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-65035, 333-48540, 333-71958,333-84914, 333-99033, 333-102186, 333-106589, 333-111818, and 333-117107) of SuperconductorTechnologies Inc. of our report dated March 3, 2006 except for the effects of the reverse stock split discussed inNote 2, as to which the date is March 13, 2006, relating to the consolidated financial statementsand financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K./s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLPLos Angeles, California
<PAGE>

                                                                    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



I, C. Christian Winkle, President and Chief Executive Officer of Mariner Health
Care, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. section 1350, that:

(1)      the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period
         ended December 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the
         requirements of sections 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.


Date:      March 15, 2004

/s/ C. Christian Winkle
--------------------------------------

C. Christian Winkle
President and
Chief Executive Officer (Principal
Executive Officer)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Gary, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ivan Warner, J.), rendered March 23, 1988, which convicted defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree and sentenced him, as a predicate felony offender, to a term of from 3 Vi to 7 years’ imprisonment, unanimously affirmed.

On December 17, 1986, the defendant struck an off-duty police detective on the side of the face and then placed him in a chokehold while grabbing at a watch and ring on the detective’s left hand. The detective announced that he was a police officer and, when defendant tightened his hold around the detective’s neck, discharged his off-duty revolver four times over his left shoulder, striking defendant several times.

Acquittal of defendant on the robbery charge, which was the underlying felony upon which the second degree assault count was based, did not result in a repugnant verdict. The verdict in the present case was not at odds with the trial court’s charge to the jury, which gave the jury the option of basing the conviction for second degree assault on a finding that defendant caused physical injury to the complainant in the furtherance of an attempt to rob him. "It matters not how the jury reached its verdict or even if the verdict is logically inconsistent provided the verdict is not at odds with the charge” *(People v Hankinson,*119 AD2d 506, 508). This court’s decisions in *People v Gillens*(138 AD2d 335) and *People v Sanchez*(128 AD2d 377) do not compel a different result, as those cases are distinguishable on their facts. In both cases, the assault count was based on a factual showing by the People that the robbery was completed and the defendant in each was acquitted of the robbery charge. Thus, the guilty verdicts on the felony assaults did not comport with the acquittal verdicts on the underlying robbery. The evidence here was sufficient to support the findings that defendant intended to rob the detective, attempted to do so, and inflicted physical injury in the commission of that attempt. With respect to the issue of physical injury, the medical evidence *278and the complainant’s testimony sufficiently demonstrate that the complainant suffered impairment and substantial pain. *(See, People v Greene,*70 NY2d 860; *People v Lundquist,*151 AD2d 505, 507.)

The defendant’s claim regarding the court’s charge was unpreserved. *(See, People v Thomas,*50 NY2d 467, 472.) In view of the strong evidence of guilt and the adequacy of the trial court’s reasonable doubt charge, this court declines to review that claim in the interest of justice.

Defendant’s remaining claims have been reviewed and found to be without merit. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
# Cou r t of Appea l s of t h e S ta te of

Geor gi a

A TLA N TA ,_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The C o u rt o f Appea ls h ereb

y p a s s es the fo llo wi

n g order:

A25A03 08

. N AT AS H A VAN H OLT E N v. AN T H ON Y BE RRY.

This c ase began as a disp o ssesso r y p ro c eed ing in magistrate c o urt. Fo llo w ing

an ad v erse ru ling, d ef

end ant Natasha V an H o lten f iled a petitio n f

o r r ev iew w ith the

su p erio r c o u r t. Fo llo w ing a n a dv erse ru ling in the s u p erio r c o u rt, V an H o lten initiated
this d irec t ap p e al by f

iling a no tic e o f

ap p eal. W e, ho w ev er, lac k j u risd ic tio n.
A p p eals f ro m su p erio r c o u rt d ec isio ns r ev iew ing lo w er c o u rt d ec is i o n s by

p etitio ns f

o r rev iew mu st be initiated by f iling an ap plic a tio n f

or d isc retio nary rev iew

. O C G A § 5- 6

- 35 (a) (1 ) , (b); Bu llo ck v

. S a n d , 26 0 Ga. A p p

. 87 4, 87 5 (581 S E 2 d 3 3 3 ) (2003). “ Co mp lianc e w ith the d isc retio nary ap p eals pro c ed u re i s j u risd ic tio nal. ”
S mo a k v

. D ept. o

f Hu ma n Res o u rces , 2 2 1 Ga. A p p

. 257 , 257 (47 1 SE2d 6 0) (1 9 9 6 ).

B e c a u se this c ase inv o lv es an ap p eal f ro m magistrate c o u r t to s u p erio r c o u rt, V an
H o lten has n o r ight to a direc t ap p eal here. See Bu llo ck , 26 0 Ga. Ap p

. at 87 5.
A c c o rd ingly, this ap p eal is hereby D I SM I SSED f o r lac k o f j u risd ic t io n.

C o u r t o f A p p e a ls o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O ffic e , A t la n t a ,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t ha t t h e a b o v e is a t

r u e e x t r a c t fr o m

t h e m in u t e s o f t h e C o u r t o f A pp e a ls o f G e o r g ia

. W it n e s s m y s ig n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o f s a id c o u r t h e r e t o a ffix e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r la s t a b o v e w r

it t e n

.

, C le r

k

. September 24, 2024

09/24/2024
#### Lawrence M. Klepner, Respondent, v Codata Corporation et al., Appellants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David B. Saxe, J.), entered on or about May 18, 1989, in an action, *inter alia,*for breach of contract and quantum meruit, which denied defendant’s motion to compel production of documents reflecting the wages plaintiff earned subsequent to his employment with defendant, is unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this action plaintiff seeks payment of an alleged agreed-upon salary while he was employed by defendant Codata Corporation, as its general counsel and as an assistant to its president, defendant Dorfman. It is plaintiff’s contention that Dorfman fraudulently induced him to continue to work for Codata by promising him substantial raises which were never paid. He, therefore, seeks to recover wages allegedly due him between 1978 and 1980.

During an examination before trial on August 12, 1987, request was made of the plaintiff for documents reflecting the wages he earned subsequent to his employment with Codata. On August 25, 1987, defendants renewed this request by letter to plaintiff’s attorneys. On December 14, 1987, by letter, plaintiff declined to produce the requested information.

While counsel has utilized a letter format rather than a notice to produce pursuant to CPLR 3120, it is conceded that a timely motion for a protective order (CPLR 3122) vacating defendants’ demand was not made. Generally the failure to make a timely motion for a protective order forecloses all inquiry into the propriety of the information to be discovered unless the notice to produce is palpably improper *(Handy v Geften Realty,*129 AD2d 556; *Wood v Sardi’s Rest. Corp.,*47 AD2d 870).

The IAS court determined that the documents relating to plaintiff’s subsequent salary were irrelevant to the issues presented in this action. We agree. Plaintiff’s action is for earnings arising from a breach of an employment agreement with the corporate defendant. Plaintiff’s earnings after leaving defendant’s employment have no bearing on the issues presented. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Theresa Q. Hoffmann, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Universal Capital Management, Inc.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 (e) and 15d-15 (e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  September 19, 2011



/s/ Theresa Q. Hoffmann

Theresa Q. Hoffmann

Principal Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18417-18418]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8803]



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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Division of Research Grants; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
Division of Research Grants Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) meetings:

Purpose/Agenda

    To review individual grant applications.

    Name of SEP: Microbiological and Immunological Sciences.
    Date: April 24, 1995.
    Time: 2 p.m.
    Place: NIH, Westwood Building, Room 235, Telephone Conference.
    Contact Person: Dr. Jean Hickman, Scientific Review Admin., 5333 
Westbard Ave., Room 235, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-7078.

    Name of SEP: Multidisciplinary Sciences.
    Date: April 24, 1995.
    Time: 1 p.m.
    Place: Holiday Inn, National Airport, VA.
    Contact Person: Dr. Houston Baker, Scientific Review Admin., 
5333 Westbard Ave., Room 2A15B, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-7374.

    Name of SEP: Microbiological and Immunological Sciences.
    Date: April 25, 1995.
    Time: 1 p.m.
    Place: NIH, Westwood Building, Room 236A, Telephone Conference.
    Contact Person: Dr. William Branche, Scientific Review Admin., 
5333 Westbard Ave., Room 236A, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-7297.

    Name of SEP: Biological and Physiological Sciences.
    Date: April 26, 1995.
    Time: 3 p.m.
    Place: NIH, Westwood Building, Room 225A, Telephone Conference.
    Contact Person: Dr. Sherry Dupere, Scientific Review 
Administrator, 5333 Westbard Ave., Room 225A, Bethesda, MD 20892, 
(301) 594-7097.

    Name of SEP: Clinical Sciences.
    Date: April 27, 1995.
    Time: 2 p.m.
    Place: NIH, Westwood Building, Room 221, Telephone Conference.
    Contact Person: Dr. Philip Perkins, Scientific Review Admin., 
5333 Westbard Ave., Room 221, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-7324.

    The meetings will be closed in accordance with the provisions 
set forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. 
Applications and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
[[Page 18418]] patentable material and personal information 
concerning individuals associated with the applications and/or 
proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of property privacy.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations imposed by 
the grant review cycle.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: April 3, 1995.
Susan K. Feldman,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 95-8803 Filed 4-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
---

---

Exhibit 15.2

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-96929 and 333-127340)
of our reports dated January 31, 2008 and March 27, 2009 with respect to the financial
statements of SENSTAR STELLAR LATIN AMERICA, S.A. DE C.V. as of December 31, 2008 and for
the three years then ended, which report appears in this Annual Report on Form 20-F
of Magal Security Systems Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2008.

|             |                                          
|------------ | -----------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|Mexico, D F  | /s/ Salles, Sainz - Grant Thornton, S. C.
|July 9, 2009 | Salles, Sainz - Grant Thornton, S. C.    
|             |                                          



---

---
Third Amendment to Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 

CDI CORP. 

Third Amendment to Employment Agreement 

This is a third amendment (this “Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement (the “Agreement) entered into as of January 1, 2008 between
CDI Corp., a Pennsylvania corporation (the “Company”), and Roger H. Ballou (the “Executive”). The Agreement was previously amended as of April 1, 2008 and March 19, 2009. 

For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged by each party, and intending to be legally bound, the parties
agree as follows: 
  

	1.	Exhibit C to the Agreement shall be amended to add the following paragraph to the end of the exhibit: 


“With respect to the shares of PCDS which the Executive may earn in 2011 based on the Company’s performance in 2010, the
Compensation Committee shall establish, prior to February 28, 2010, the performance targets, the metric on which the performance targets are based, and the dollar value of PCDS which the Executive would earn if the threshold, target or maximum
levels of performance are achieved. The first table in this Exhibit C and the section of this Exhibit C entitled “Bracketing of Targets” will not apply to the Executive’s PCDS award relating to the Company’s 2010
performance.” 
  

	2.	The second table in Exhibit C to the Agreement shall be amended to delete the rows for “Target PTP ($)”, “Total LTI Award ($)” and “PCDS
($)” under “Year 2010”. 

  

	3.	Section 3 of Exhibit B to the Agreement shall be amended to replace the phrase “if certain levels of Pre-Tax Profit are achieved, in accordance with Exhibit
C” with the phrase ““if certain levels of performance are achieved, in accordance with Exhibit C”. 

  

	4.	All other provisions of the Agreement remain unchanged. 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties have executed this Amendment effective as of February 25, 2010. 

 

							
	Company:	 		 	Executive:
	CDI CORP.	 		 	
				
	By:	 	 /s/    Walter R. Garrison
	 		 	 /s/    Roger H. Ballou

		 	Walter R. Garrison	 		 	Roger H. Ballou
		 	Chairman of the Board
f8k062711ex10xv_suspect.htm



Exhibit 10.15


 


Schedule 4.8








	
Issued and outstanding shares

	  	  	  
	  	
Percentage Holdings

	
Number of Shares

	  
	
Suspect Detection Systems, Inc.

	
58.1%

	
       1,388,357

	  
	
Shabtai Shoval

	
31.4%

	
          750,000

	  
	
Yishaiyahu (Sigi) Horowitz

	
10.5%

	
          250,000

	  
	
Total

	
100%

	
       2,388,357

	  
	  	  	  	  
	
Fully Diluted Basis**

	  	  	  
	  	
Percentage Holdings

	
Number of Shares

	  
	
Suspect Detection Systems, Inc.

	
50.38%

	
       1,388,357

	  
	
Shabtai Shoval *

	
27.22%

	
          750,000

	  
	
Yishaiyahu (Sigi) Horowitz *

	
9.07%

	
          250,000

	  
	
Options

	
13.33%

	
          367,299

	  
	
Total

	
100.00%

	
       2,755,656

	  
	  	  	  	  





* Actual shares; Not including options held by him and does not assume the cancellation of options held by Shabtai Shoval as of the date of the Agreement as contemplated by Section 9.1.4 of the Agreement.







**  Does not assume the cancellation of options held by Shabtai Shoval as of the date of the Agreement as contemplated by Section 9.1.4 of the Agreement.
# U n i t e d S t a t e s C o u r t o f A pp e a l s For the Eig hth Circu it

_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ No . 1 8 -3 6 09

_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Si m o n Ch o ch l l l l l l l l l l l l l l ll l l l l l Pet i t i o n er

v . W i l l i am P. Barr, At to rn ey

Gen eral o f t h e Un i t edSt at es l l l ll l l l l l l l l l l l l l l ll Res

po n den t

_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Pet i t i o n fo r Rev i ew o f an Ord er o f t h e Bo ard o f Imm ig rat i on Ap peal s

_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Sub m i tt ed : Oct o b er 3 , 2 0 1 9 Fi l ed : Oct o b er 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 [Un pu b l is h ed ]

_ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ Befo re BENTON, KELLY, an d ERICKSON, Ci rcu i tJ u d g es .

_ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ PER CURIAM

. Si m o n Ch o ch p et i ti o ns fo r rev i ew o f an o r d er o f t he Bo ard of Im m i g rat i o n Ap p eal s up h o l d i n g an i m m i g rat i o n ju dg e’ s o rd er fi n d in g h i m rem o v ab l e fo r h av i n g co m m i t t ed an ag g rav at ed fel o ny ; an d d en y in g hi m can cel l at i o n o f rem o v al , as y l u m , wi t h h o l di n g o f rem o v al , an d d eferral o f rem ov al u n d er t h e Co n v en t i o n Ag ai n s t To rtu r e . Hav i n g j u ri s d ict i o n u n d er 8 U.S.C. § 1 2 5 2 (a)(2 )(C) an d (D) t o rev i ewco n st i tu t io n al cl ai m s or qu es t io n s o f l aw, in cl u d i ng wh et h er a co n v i ct i o n q u al i fi es as

an ag g rav at ed fel o n y , an d aft er carefu l co n s i d erat i o n o f t h e pet i t i o n , t hi s co u rt fi nd s n o b as is fo r rev ers al

. Th e p et i t i o n i s d en i ed

. S ee 8 t h Ci r. R. 4 7 B.

__ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _

-2

-
EXHIBIT 99.8

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

 

We hereby consent to the inclusion in this Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 and the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-145236, 333-127265, 333-13456, 333-97305 and 333-6436), Form F-3 (File No. 33-77022) and Form F-10 (File Nos. 333-152607 and 333-170200)****of Enbridge Inc. (the “Corporation”) of our report dated February 18, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements of the Corporation as at December 31, 2010 and 2009 and for each of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 2010 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as at December 31, 2010.

 

 

 

 
| “signed” |   |
|--------------------|--------|

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Chartered Accountants

 

 

 

Calgary, Alberta, Canada

February 18, 2011

 

----