alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FORM 10-QSB FOR DBS INDUSTRIES, INC. FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          34,914
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  100,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               456,197
<PP&E>                                          73,277
<DEPRECIATION>                                  29,941
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,337,211
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,809,788
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,341
<OTHER-SE>                                  (1,474,918)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,337,211
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,420
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               615,737
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              85,119
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (689,436)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (604,317)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (691,686)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.12)
        

</TABLE>
- Bureau Home
- About Us
- Leadership
- Key Topics
- Remarks and Releases

HomeBureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs...About Us – Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs

# 									About Us							

Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs

The Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs—often referred to as “Oceans, Environment, and Science” or simply “OES”—covers issues that reach from the vastness of space to the depths of the oceans. Created by Congress in 1973 and formally established by the Department the following year,****OES works to ensure economic growth and a healthy planet go hand in hand.

OES has a long and successful history of advancing U.S. interests in environment, science, technology, health, oceans, fisheries, and outer space to make sure American citizens and companies benefit from international opportunities in these sectors.  Whether combatting wildlife trafficking or helping to ensure the smooth functioning of Global Positioning System on smart phones, our issues hold a significant place in the American consciousness and in Americans’ daily lives.

## Contact Us

For media inquiries, please contact OES-Press@state.gov.

Back to Top
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 13

- 00186

- CV

Leticia R. BENAVIDES

, Appellant

v. Shirley Hale Mathis, as Temporary Guardian of

- Trustees of the Benavides Family Mineral Trust Shirley Hale MATHIS

, As Temporary Guardian of the Estate of Carlos Y. Benavides, Jr, Appellee

From the 406th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012

- CVQ

- 000427

- D4 Honorable Oscar J Hale, Jr., Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE MARTINEZ , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In acc ordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s February 27, 2013 Order Granting Traditional and No Evidence Summary Judgment in favor of Shirley Hale Mathis, as Temporary Guardian of the Estate of Carlos Y. Benavides, Jr. is AFFIRMED.

It is ORDERED that Shirley Hale Mathis, as Temporary Guardian of the Estate of Carlos Y. Benavides, Jr. recover her costs of this appeal from Leticia R. Benavides.

SIGNED February 12, 2014.

_____________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
IA

★

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 9

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution to require that congressional

resolutions setting forth levels of total budget outlays and Federal revenues must be agreed to by two-thirds vote of both Houses of the Congress

if the level of outlays exceeds the level of revenues.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. SOLOMON introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution to require that

congressional resolutions setting forth levels of total

budget outlays and Federal revenues must be agreed

to by two-thirds vote of both Houses of the Congress

if the level of outlays exceeds the level of revenues.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
2

•HJ 9 IH1S

1 States within seven years from the date of its submission

2 by the Congress:

3 ‘‘ARTICLE—

4 ‘‘On the question of agreeing, in either the House of

5 Representatives or the Senate, to a concurrent resolution

6 of the two Houses of the Congress which sets forth an

7 appropriate level of total budget outlays of the Federal

8 Government for a fiscal year and a recommended level of

9 Federal revenues for that fiscal year or of agreeing, in

10 either the House of Representatives or the Senate, to a

11 report of a conference committee on such a concurrent res12 olution, the affirmative vote of two-thirds of Members

13 present and voting (a quorum being present), shall be re14 quired for agreeing to the question, if the appropriate level

15 of total budget outlays set forth in such concurrent resolu16 tion or recommended in such conference report exceeds the

17 recommended level of Federal revenues set forth in such

18 concurrent resolution or recommended in such conference

19 report.’’.

Æ
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 205.16 What special rules apply to Federal assistance programs and projects funded by the Federal Highway Trust Fund? The following applies to Federal assistance programs and projects funded out of the Federal Highway Trust Fund, notwithstanding any other provision of this part: ( a ) A State must request funds at least weekly for current project costs, or Federal interest liability will not accrue prior to the day a State submits a request for funds.
( b ) If a State pays out its own funds in the absence of a project agreement or in excess of the Federal obligation in a project agreement, the Federal Program Agency will not incur an interest liability.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                           JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                                       2,459
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  801
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   273
<INVENTORY>                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                 0
<PP&E>                                                       5,729
<DEPRECIATION>                                               5,665
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               4,426
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                            0
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                                   4,003
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 4,426
<SALES>                                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             1,020
<CGS>                                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                  406
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                10
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                614
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                            614
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                                   614
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                 2.96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    0
        

</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

#### §§ 359.20-359.24 [Reserved]
IA

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 167

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to limit

the judicial power of the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 21, 1996

Mr. TALENT introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States to limit the judicial power of the United States.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the follow4 ing article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitu5 tion of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents

6 and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by

7 the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States with8 in seven years after the date of its submission for ratifica9 tion:
2

•HJ 167 IH

1 ‘‘ARTICLE —

2 ‘‘The judicial power of the United States shall not

3 include the power to require any of the several States, the

4 District of Columbia, or any commonwealth, territory, or

5 possession of the United States to levy or increase any

6 tax.’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       3,430,753
<SECURITIES>                                 5,493,963
<RECEIVABLES>                                  430,574
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (30,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  2,208,970
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,720,162
<PP&E>                                       8,067,632
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,732,007)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              72,712,292
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          573,057
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    84,435,480
<OTHER-SE>                                (64,408,442)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,712,292
<SALES>                                        845,586
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,308,606
<CGS>                                          343,789
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,054,276
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,089,459)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,089,459)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,089,459)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.15)
        

</TABLE>
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues Rao Gupta Travels to New York

# 											Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues Rao Gupta Travels to New York									

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

October 26, 2023

U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues Dr. Geeta Rao Gupta will travel to New York, New York, to represent the United States at the first International Alliance on Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative (PSVI) Principals Meeting on October 27.  Announced by the United Kingdom in November 2022, the International Alliance on PSVI is a group of countries, organizations, and individuals working together on prevention and response to conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV).  Ambassador Rao Gupta’s participation in this inaugural Principals Meeting highlights and advances the U.S. government’s commitment to preventing and responding to gender-based violence, including CRSV.

For media inquiries, please contact stategwi@state.gov.

Tags

Gender-based ViolenceNew YorkOffice of the SpokespersonOfficial Domestic Travel

Back to Top
###### Editorial Note on Part 301

#### Editorial Note:

In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations.

References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

#### § 301.7457-1 Witness fees.

Any witness summoned for the Commissioner or whose deposition is taken under section 7456 shall receive the same fees and mileage as witnesses in courts of the United States. Such fees and mileage and the expense of taking any such deposition shall be paid by the Commissioner out of any moneys appropriated for the collection of internal revenue taxes, and may be paid in advance.
#### In the Matter of the Assignment of Foley *&*Co. to Edward True for the Benefit of Creditors.

[Special Teem.]

(Decided January, 1878.)

Where, after an assignment for the benefit of creditors, a warrant of attachment against the property of the assignor is obtained by a creditor on the ground that the assignment is a fraudulent disposition of property, moneys in the hands of the attorney for the assignee, collected by him before the issue of the attachment, upon claims forming part of the assigned estate, are not subject to levy under such attachment.

*5Application by an assignee under a general assignment for the benefit of ci editors for payment to him of moneys of the assigned estate in the hands of his attorney.

Foley & Co. made an assignment for the benefit of their creditors to Edward True. Part of the assets assigned were claims against debtors of Foley *&*Co., which the assignee employed his attorney, David Leventritt, Esq., to collect. After some of these claims had been collected, but before the proceeds had been paid over to the assignee, Thomas Hanley, one of the creditors of Foley & Co., procured from the Marine Court an attachment against their property on the ground that the assignment was fraudulent, and the attachment was levied on the moneys collected and the uncollected claims remaining in the hands of Mr. Leventritt. The assignee applied to have the moneys paid over to himself.

*M. M. Budlong,*for Edward True, assignee.

*David*Leventritt, in person.

*Peter Cook,*for Thomas Hanley, attaching creditor.

J. F. Daly, J.

The attachment of Thomas Hanley, a creditor of the assignors, Foley & Co., which was issued by the Marine Court on the ground that Foley & Co. had fraudulently disposed of their property, can be levied only upon the property claimed to have been fraudulently assigned, and not upon its proceeds *(Lawrence*v. *Bank of the Republic,*35 N. Y. 320; *Lanning*v. *Streeter,*57 Barb. 33 ; *Campbell*v. *Erie R. Co.,*46 Barb. 540; *Greenleaf*v. *Mumford,*50 Barb. 543; *McElwain*v. *Willis,*9 Wend. 548).

In this case the attachment was levied on two classes of property in the possession of David Leventritt, attorney of the assignee, viz: (1) moneys collected from debtors of the assignors upon claims placed in Mr. Leventritt’s hands by the assignee for collection; and, (2) claims against other debtors of the assignors uncollected.

The proceeds of collected claims are to be regarded in the *6same light as proceeds of sales of property. When the claim is uncollected the debt maybe levied on under the attachment, but when the debt has been paid before the attachment is issued nothing remains which is the subject of levy, and the creditors of the assignors can only reach the proceeds by action in equity against his assignee after exhausting their legal remedies.

It follows, therefore, that whatever moneys had been collected by the attorney for the assignee before the attachment was issued are not the subject of attachment, and must be paid over by Mr. Leventritt to the assignee.

Application granted.
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 315.29 Adjudication of claims. ( a ) *General.* The Bureau of the Fiscal Service will adjudicate claims for lost, stolen or destroyed bonds on the basis of records created and regularly maintained in the ordinary course of business.
( b ) *Claims filed ten years after payment.* A bond for which no claim has been filed within ten years of the recorded date of redemption will be presumed to have been properly paid. If a claim is subsequently filed, a photographic copy of the bond will not be available to support the disallowance. This provision will be effective 60 days after the effective date of the Eleventh Revision of Department of the Treasury Circular No. 530 (31 CFR part 315).
( c ) *Claims filed six years after final maturity.* No claim filed six years or more after the final maturity of a savings bond will be entertained, unless the claimant supplies the serial number of the bond.
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 321.18 Determination of loss. Upon completion of the investigation, and after consideration of the results, the Bureau of the Fiscal Service shall advise the agent through which the payment occurred: ( a ) That no final loss to the United States has occurred, and, accordingly, that the agent is relieved from liability for the payment, or that no claim for reimbursement shall be made unless and until a loss has been sustained; or
( b ) That while a final loss to the United States has occurred, the agent is not required to make reimbursement therefor, as the Secretary of the Treasury, or his designee, has determined that such loss resulted from no fault or negligence on the part of such agent; or
( c ) That a final loss to the United States has occurred, and that, the Secretary of the Treasury, or his designee, has been unable to make an affirmative finding that such loss resulted from no fault or negligence on the part of such agent, reimbursement must be made promptly, except where credit for the payment had not previously been extended.
Letter Agreement between Zhone Technologies, Inc. and KKR-ZT, L.L.C.



 Exhibit 10.10 
 ZHONE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 
 7001 OAKPORT STREET 
 OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94621 
 May 24, 2006 
 KKR-ZT L.L.C. 
  

	 	Re:	Waiver Letter 

 Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 Reference is made to that certain Letter Agreement dated November 13, 2003 (the “Letter Agreement”) between Zhone Technologies, Inc.
(“Zhone”) and KKR-ZT L.L.C. (“KKR”) regarding the nomination of certain directors to the Board of Directors of Zhone (the “Board”). 
 This letter confirms our understanding that, in light of Adam Clammer’s resignation from the Board and the current composition of the Board, KKR has
agreed to waive its right under the Letter Agreement to require Zhone to nominate as directors two nominees designated by KKR. KKR retains its right to require Zhone to nominate as a director one nominee designated by KKR, who shall be appointed to
the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee as required by the Letter Agreement. In addition, KKR retains all other rights provided in the Letter Agreement. KKR may revoke this waiver at any time by providing written notice to such effect to
Zhone. 
 Except as hereby modified, the Letter Agreement will continue in full force and effect. 
  

			
	Very truly yours,
	
	ZHONE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Kirk Misaka

	Name:	 	Kirk Misaka
	Title:	 	CFO


 Acknowledged and Agreed: 
  

			
	KKR-ZT L.L.C.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ James H. Greene, Jr.

	Name:	 	James H. Greene, Jr.
	Title:	 	President
40369.

#### CARDEN v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

Decided January 7, 1964.

*Daniel B. Clark,*for plaintiff in error.

*Greene, Neely, Buckley & DeRieux, Burt DeRieux, James H. Moore,*contra.

Pannell, Judge.

1. The claimant’s testimony, the only evidence offered to prove notice of accident as required by *Code*§ 114-303, was equivocal, vague and contradictory and showed that no notice of injury from the accident was given at all. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the finding of the director, that the notice required was not given, was unsupported by the evidence. See *Royal Indem. Co. v. Coulter,*213 Ga. 277 (98 SE2d 899); *Employer’s Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Holloway,*98 Ga. App. 265 (105 SE2d 370); *Kresge v. Holley,*104 Ga. App. 144 (121 SE2d 182).

2. In view of the above ruling, it is unnecessary to pass upon the other questions argued upon appeal.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bell, P. J., and Hall, J., concur.*