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 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6204

Dallas Airmotive, 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
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, 2010 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.




/s/Eitan Livneh *


Eitan Livneh


President and Chief Executive Officer





Date:  April 11, 2011





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





This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form 20-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act").  Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference
Exhibit 13.2
 
 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 Gilat Satellite Networks 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, Ari Krashin, Chief Financial Officer 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.
 
 /s/ Ari Krashin*
 Ari Krashin
 Chief Financial Officer
 
 April 1, 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.
Exhibit 32.2

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 JayHawk Energy, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Scott Mahoney, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, 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.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to JayHawk Energy, Inc., and will be retained by JayHawk Energy, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                                                                                              |  |  |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | 
|                                                                                              |  |  |  | 
|/s/ Scott Mahoney                                                                             |  |  |  | 
|Scott Mahoney
Interim Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
December 23, 2016 |  |  |  |
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6323

CW Bearing USA, Inc:

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/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.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 the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

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 10.1





TERMINATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AGREEMENT





This Termination of Administrative Services Agreement (the “Termination Agreement”) is entered on February 10, 2010 by and between iVoice, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, with its principal office at 750 Route 34, Matawan, NJ, 07747 (“iVoice”), and B Green Innovations, Inc., f/k/a iVoice Technology, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, with its principal office at 750 Route 34, Matawan, NJ, 07747 (the “Company”).





WHEREAS, B Green Innovations, Inc. (“B Green”) was previously a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company when it was named iVoice Technology, Inc. (“iVoice Technology”), prior to B Green merging into iVoice Technology and iVoice Technology changing its name to B Green Innovations, Inc.; and





WHEREAS,on March 1, 2007, B Green and iVoice entered into an Administrative Services Agreement (the “B Green Agreement”) and on May 5, 2008 B Green issued a Convertible Promissory Note (the “Note”) payable to iVoice for any and all monies owed and unpaid by B Green to iVoice pursuant to the B Green Agreement; and





WHEREAS, on August 1, 2004, as amended, iVoice and the Company, f/k/a iVoice Technology, Inc. entered into an Administrative Services Agreement; and





WHEREAS, the Company and iVoice have mutually decided to terminate the B Green Agreement dated March 1, 2007 and to extinguish the monies owed by the Company to iVoice pursuant to the B Green Agreement dated March 1, 2007 as the Company and iVoice have determined that the B Green Agreement previously entered into provided and charged for services that were redundant to the charges and services provided pursuant to the Administrative Services Agreement between iVoice and the Company dated August 1, 2004, as amended.





NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows:





1.
Effective November 17, 2009, the Company and iVoice hereby mutually agree to terminate and extinguish any all obligations between the parties pursuant to the following agreements:


a.
The Administrative Services Agreement dated March 1, 2007 by and between B Green Innovations, Inc. and iVoice, Inc.


b.
The Convertible Promissory Note dated May 5, 2008 issued by B Green Innovations, Inc. payable to iVoice, Inc.


c.
The Security Agreement dated May 5, 2008 by and between B Green Innovations, Inc. and iVoice, Inc.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Termination Agreement to be duly executed as of the day and year first above written.





IVOICE, INC.











By:           /s/


Jerome Mahoney


President








B GREEN INNOVATIONS, INC.











By:          /s/


Jerome Mahoney


President
EXHIBIT 99.2

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 Cardinal Financial Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P. Hollerbach, Chief Financial Officer 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)  This
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

(2)  The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| |  | /s/JOHN P. HOLLERBACHJohn P. Hollerbach
Chief Financial Officer
November 14, 2002
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
exv10w3









Exhibit 10.3




As adopted by the Board of

Directors on July 19, 2005 and

amended on September 16, 2008, May 22, 2008,

and April 21, 2010.




ART TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC.

AMENDED AND RESTATED

NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PLAN





     This
Amended and Restated Non-Employee Director Compensation Plan (this
“Plan”) establishes the compensation
of the Non-Employee Directors of Art Technology Group, Inc. (the “Company”)
beginning on April 1, 2010, for the remainder of fiscal year 2010, and subsequent
fiscal years.



     ELIGIBILITY: Each member of the Company’s Board of Directors who is not an employee of the Company shall be
eligible to participate in the Plan (the “Non-Employee Directors”).



     ANNUAL RETAINER: Each Non-Employee Director shall receive an annual retainer
in the amount of $15,000, which shall be payable in quarterly installments in arrears.



     RESTRICTED STOCK UNITS: Each Non-Employee Director shall receive an annual
restricted stock unit grant of 28,000 shares of common stock of the Company
(the “Common Stock”), to be granted each year on the date of the Company’s Annual
Meeting of Stockholders (or such later date on which a Non-Employee Director shall
first be elected) which restricted stock unit shall vest after one (1) year beginning
from the time of grant. The vesting for all restricted stock units granted to Non-Employee
Directors on or after the 2007 Annual Meeting of Stockholders will accelerate 100% upon
a Change of Control (as such term is defined in the Company’s General Change in Control
Policy for Employees).



     ADDITIONAL ANNUAL RETAINER FOR CHAIRS: Each Non-Employee Director shall
receive an additional annual retainer, payable in quarterly installments
in arrears, in the amount of $20,000 in the case of the Chair of the
Board of Directors, $10,000 in the case of the Chair of the Audit Committee,
and $7,500 in the case of the Chair of the Compensation Committee and Nominating
and Governance Committee.



     MEETING FEES: Each Non-Employee Director shall also receive the following meeting fees:




	 	(i)	 	meeting fee of $2,000 for each scheduled meeting of the Board of Directors
attended (and for attendance at unscheduled meetings of the Board of
Directors if the Board Chair determines that attendance at such meeting
should be compensated); and
	 
	 	(ii)	 	meeting fee of $1,000 for each scheduled meeting of the Audit,
Compensation, or Nominating and Governance Committee of the Board
of Directors attended (and for attendance at unscheduled Committee meetings
if the Committee Chair determines that attendance at such meeting should be
compensated).





     AMENDMENT AND INTERPRETATION: This Plan may be amended
at any time by the Board of Directors of the Company.
Any dispute or ambiguity concerning the application of the
terms of this Plan shall be resolved by a determination of
the Board of Directors of the Company, in its sole discretion.
#### Angelina Ciciarelli et al., Respondents, v Ames Department Stores, Inc., Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff was examining a display of yarn in defendant’s self-service department store when several TV trays located on the top shelf of a display on the aisle behind her fell off the shelf, striking plaintiff in the back of the head and neck. Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for the personal injuries she suffered. The jury awarded plaintiff and her husband $63,480.

On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in submitting the case to the jury on the alternate theory of res ipsa loquitur. Such submission is warranted when plaintiff establishes three necessary elements: (1) the event must be of a kind which would not ordinarily occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; (2) it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; and (3) it must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff *(see, Dermatossian v New York City Tr. Auth.,*67 NY2d 219; *Corcoran v Banner Super Mkt.,*19 NY2d 425, *mot to amend remittitur granted*21 NY2d 793; Prosser and Keeton, Torts §39, at 244 [5th ed]). *997The fact that plaintiff did not plead res ipsa loquitur and relied upon specific acts of negligence did not preclude its application *(see, Abbott v Page Airways,*23 NY2d 502, 511-512).

We find that the facts adduced at the trial sufficiently established the requisite elements to warrant a jury instruction on res ipsa loquitur. The TV tray was part of a display and not a sale item. The unexplained fall of the TV tray required the defendant to come forward with an explanation as to its cause *(Neuhoff v Retlaw Realty Corp.,*289 NY 293). This it failed to do. Defendant’s argument that it did not have exclusive control because other customers had access to the tray display is unavailing. There is no direct proof in the record of third parties tampering with the display and the location of the display, five feet above floor level, belies defendant’s contention. We conclude that it is unlikely that the accident was caused by the negligence of a third party and that it is more probable that it was caused by defendant’s negligence *(see, Dermatossian v New York City Tr. Auth.,*67 NY2d 219, *supra).*We find no merit to defendant’s remaining contention that the court erred in denying its motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint at the close of plaintiffs’ case and at the close of the evidence. The inference of negligence to be drawn from the happening of the accident is sufficient to create a prima facie case *(see, George Foltis, Inc. v City of New York,*287 NY 108). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Auser, J.—negligence.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Lowery, JJ.
[Cite as State v. Wilson, 2015-Ohio-4534.]

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 CLERMONT COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO, : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2015-04-038 

 : D E C I S I O N 

 - vs - 11/2/2015 

 : 

JOHN C. WILSON, : 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

Case No. 2014CR00721 

Vincent D. Faris, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, Nicholas A. Horton, 76 South 

Riverside Drive, 2nd Floor, Batavia, Ohio 45103, for plaintiff-appellee 

John D. Hill, Jr. and Louis Rubenstein, 125 East Court Street, Suite 1000, Cincinnati, Ohio 

45202, for defendant-appellant 

 Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal, the transcript of 

the docket and journal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the 

Clermont County Court of Common Pleas, and upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel. 

{¶ 2} Counsel for defendant-appellant, John C. Wilson, has filed a brief with this court 

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates that 
Clermont CA2015-04-038 

 - 2 - 

a careful review of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the 

trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be 

predicated; (2) lists one potential error "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders, at 

744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently to 

determine whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of 

appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant 

on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both the brief 

and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant. 

{¶ 3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having 

been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to 

appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel for appellant 

requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal is dismissed for the reason that 

it is wholly frivolous. 

S. POWELL, P.J., RINGLAND and HENDRICKSON, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 68 (Monday, April 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18101-18102]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8739]



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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5187-2]


Report on the Workshop on Cancer Risk Assessment Guidelines 
Issues

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of a report titled 
Report on the Workshop on Cancer Risk Assessment Guidelines Issues 
(EPA/630/R-94/005a). This report compiles discussions from a technical 
review workshop on the draft document titled Draft Revisions to the 
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (External Review Draft; EPA/
600/BP-92/003). Highlights of reviewers' pre-meeting comments on the 
draft document are included in the workshop report; copies of 
reviewers' comments in their entirety are available from the National 
Technical Information Service.

ADDRESSES: To obtain a single copy of the workshop report, interested 
parties should contact the ORD Publications Office, CERI, U.S. 
Environmental [[Page 18102]] Protection Agency, 26 West Martin Luther 
King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268, Tel (513) 569-7562, Fax: (513) 569-
7566. Please provide your name and mailing address, and request the 
document by the title and EPA number (EPA/630/R-94/005a).
    To obtain a copy of reviewers' pre-meeting comments, interested 
parties should contact the National Technical Information Service, 5285 
Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, Telephone (703) 487-4650. The 
document number is PB95-148201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Jeanette Wiltse, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (8601), 401 M 
Street SW., Washington, DC 20460, Telephone: (202) 260-7315.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 
Risk Assessment Forum and Office of Health and Environmental Assessment 
organized a workshop to technically review the Agency's draft revised 
cancer risk assessment guidelines (Draft Revisions to the Guidelines 
for Carcinogen Risk Assessment--External Review Draft; EPA/600/BP-92/
003). The workshop was held on September 12-14, 1994, at the Hyatt 
Regency in Reston, Virginia (59 FR 43125).
    EPA convened a panel of experts to evaluate and comment on 
technical issues in the draft document concerning mode of action, 
hazard identification, dose response, and default assumptions. This 
report, entitled Report on the Workshop on Cancer Risk Assessment 
Guidelines Issues (EPA/630/R-94/005a), compiles discussion and 
information from the technical review workshop. EPA will use the 
reviewers' comments and recommendations drawn from the workshop in 
considering revisions to the draft guidelines.

    Dated: March 25, 1995.
Robert J. Huggett,
Assistant Administrator for Research and Development.
[FR Doc. 95-8739 Filed 4-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M