alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 265

To require manufacturers of motor vehicles to provide for dissemination

to the public all vehicle warranty and repair information provided dealers.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. JACOBS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Commerce

A BILL

To require manufacturers of motor vehicles to provide for

dissemination to the public all vehicle warranty and repair information provided dealers.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. COLLECTION AND DISSEMINATION OF WAR4 RANTY AND REPAIR INFORMATION.

5 (a) INFORMATION.—Part B of title I of the National

6 Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 is amended

7 by adding at the end the following:
2

•HR 265 IH

1 ‘‘COLLECTION AND DISSEMINATION OF WARRANTY AND

2 REPAIR INFORMATION

3 ‘‘SEC. 161. (a) Each motor vehicle manufacturer

4 shall provide to the Secretary, in accordance with regula5 tions of the Secretary, all motor vehicle warranty and re6 pair information that the manufacturer provides to its

7 dealers. The Secretary, acting through the Auto Safety

8 Hotline of the National Traffic Safety Administration,

9 shall make the information readily available to the public.

10 ‘‘(b) A manufacturer which does not provide informa11 tion in accordance with subsection (a) shall be subject to

12 a civil penalty under section 109 and a civil action under

13 section 110.’’.

14 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

15 subsection (a) shall take effect upon the expiration of 180

16 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
# Office of the Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs Releases

92 items

        -    		Office of the Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs	  January 20, 2021 
        -    		Roger D. Carstens	  February 19, 2019 

previous page1…8910

Back to Top
#### Don Evans CIOETA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 78-992.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 20, 1979.

*719Stanley M. Goldstein, Miami, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Paul Mendel-son, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., PEARSON, J. and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Don Evans Cioeta, was charged with possession and sale of marijuana and pled guilty to the sale. He was sentenced to eighteen months probation. Thereafter, an affidavit of violation of probation was filed and a hearing was held before the trial court. The court found that the appellant had violated his probation by the possession of a short-barrel shotgun. He was thereupon adjudged guilty on his guilty plea and sentenced to two years in prison. This appeal is from the revocation of probation.

Each of appellant’s points urges that the trial court violated his right to due process in the conduct of the hearing. As has often been pointed out, the purpose of a violation of probation hearing is to satisfy the conscience of the trial court concerning whether the allowed probation has been violated. See *Bernhardt v. State,*288 So.2d 490 (Fla.1974); and *Holmes v. State,*311 So.2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Such a hearing must accord to the petitioner some due process rights, but these rights are not the same as those accorded to a defendant upon trial. See *State v. Heath,*343 So.2d 13 (Fla.1977); and *Croteau v. State,*334 So.2d 577 (Fla.1976).

On this appeal, the appellant claims that the court erred in refusing to enforce his right to pretrial discovery and by taking into consideration an inculpatory statement he had made. If a probationer needs additional information in order properly to prepare a defense to the charges, the various methods of discovery under the rules are available to him. *Hines v. State,*358 So.2d 183, 185 (Fla.1978). Therefore, the appellant’s point directed to the claimed denial of discovery requires an examination of the record to see whether he was given a full opportunity to explain away the accusations against him. See *Holmes v. State,*311 So.2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Our review of the record convinces us that the appellant was given every opportunity to present any evidence that he might have to show his innocence of the charged violation.

Appellant’s point directed to the consideration of the inculpatory statement to police officers at the time of his arrest for the second crime is also without merit. See *State*v. *Allen,*335 So.2d 823 (Fla.1976).

We have considered the other contentions advanced by the appellant and find that they do not present reversible error.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                                 643
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       512660
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    513303
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      513303
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               513420
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            164947
<OTHER-SE>                                         (165064)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        513303
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     12639
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      9025
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   12500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (8886)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (8886)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (8886)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        


</TABLE>
LIS PENDENS AGAINST PROPERTY IN SUIT FOR. ALIMONY.

Court of Appeals for Hamilton County.

#### The Elmwood Place Loan & Building Co. v. The Cincinnati Concrete Co. et al.

Decided, March 22, 1915.

*Lis P-endens*— Under *a Restraining Order in Action for Alimony*— > *Property Covered Affected from Late of Filing of the Petition and ■ ■ a Judgment Relates Bade.*

When a petition for alimony is filed and a restraining order issued enjoining the defendant from disposing of or incumbering certain . property described in the petition, the action in alimony becomes a *lis pendens*against the property described in the petition and covered by the injunction, from the date of the filing of such petition and the issue of such injunction,' and a judgment thereafter taken in the suit for alimony relates back to the date when the petition was filed and the restraining order issued.

*W. W. Bellew,*for Luella J. Brown.

*Philip & S. C. Roettinger*and *Harry B. Street,*contra.

*400Jones (Oliver B.), J.

The question to be determined in this ease is one of priority of liens upon a fund arising from the sale of certain real estate under foreclosure proceedings.

Luella J. Brown claims a lien by virtue of a decree tor alimony. The petition under which said decree was taken was filed November 8, 1911, and a restraining order was issued on that date enjoining the defendant from disposing of or encumbering property, the description of which was set out in the petition, and which included a lot later sold in foreclosure, the proceeds of which are now sought to be reached. This injunction remained against said property until the entry of the decree, which was made October 24, 1912, and which adjudged in addition to other property an allowance of the sum of $900 in money, which was thereby made a lien on said real estate.

The Cincinnati Concrete Company claims a lien for $299.89 by reason of a judgment taken against Jay Brown, the owner of said real estate, before Edward F. Woodruff, justice of the peace, a transcript of which judgment was filed in the court of common pleas May 4, 1912. The transcript shows that this judgment was taken before the magistrate March 12, 1912, upon the confession of the defendant. This confessed judgment was therefore a violation of the restraining order issued against said defendant in -the alimony case. Outside of that question, however," the action in alimony became a *lis pendens*against the property described in the petition and covered by the injunction, from the date of the filing of said petition and the issue of such injunction, and the judgment when taken in that case related hack to that date, November 8, 1911.

Luella J. Brown must therefore be held to have a prior lien on the proceeds of said property. *Tollerton et al, Exrs.,*v. *Williard et al,*30 Ohio St., 579.

Judgment accordingly.

Jones (E. H.), J., and Gorman, J., concur.
HomeBureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration...Bureau of Population Refugees and Migration  Releases

# Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration Releases

368 items

        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement by Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken and Minister for Foreign Affairs Javier González-Olaechea	  March 15, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Assistant Secretary Noyes Travels to Ethiopia and Chad	  March 15, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement on U.S.-Ecuador High-Level Dialogue	  March 15, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		Taking Action in Response to Charter Transportation Companies Facilitating Irregular Migration to the United States	  Matthew MillerMarch 11, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Under Secretary Zeya’s Travel to Canada	  March 10, 2024 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with International Organization for Migration Director General Pope	  March 9, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		CARE Coordinator Tekach’s Travel to Texas	  March 9, 2024 
        -    Funding Opportunity Announcement  		FY 2024 Notice of Funding Opportunity for NGO Programs Benefiting Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Zambia and South Africa	  March 6, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement on Charting a New Path for Hemispheric Migration Partnership at Trilateral Ministerial Meeting	  February 28, 2024 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken, Mexican Foreign Secretary Alicia Bárcena, and Guatemalan Foreign Minister Carlos Ramiro Martínez before the U.S.-Mexico-Guatemala Trilateral Migration Ministerial Meeting	  Antony J. BlinkenFebruary 28, 2024Benjamin Franklin Room 

previous page12345…37next page

Back to Top
40468.

#### GENTRY v. GEORGIA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY et al.

Decided February 11, 1964

Rehearing denied February 26 and March 10, 1964.

*Wade H. Leonard,*for plaintiff in error.

*Wilson, Branch, Barwick & Vandiver, Thomas S. Bentley,*contra.

Frankum, Judge.

The error assigned here is on an order of the superior court denying a workmen’s compensation claimant’s petition for a judgment for allegedly unpaid compensation. The following facts appear from the bill of exceptions and the record *295before this court. Compensation was paid to the claimant in accordance with an approved agreement until December 7, 1961, at which time the employer filed an application for a hearing on account of an alleged change in condition of the claimant. Compensation payments were stopped at that time in accordance with the provisions of Rule 17 of the board. A final award made on that application and materially altering the provisions of the original agreement for the payment of compensation was entered on December 5, 1962. The claimant appealed that award to the superior court which affirmed it, and then brought the case to this court where it was reversed with direction. See *Gentry v. Georgia, Cas. &c. Co.,*107 Ga. App. 888 (131 SE2d 788). The claimant petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari and that petition was pending at the time the present action seeking a judgment for compensation payments allegedly accruing under the original agreement between December 7, 1961, and December 5, 1962, was filed and denied in the superior court.

Under the provisions of Rule 17 of the board the employer was authorized to discontinue the payment of compensation upon the filing of an application for a hearing on account of a change in the employee’s condition. *National Surety Cory. v. Nelson,*99 Ga. App. 95, 97 (2) (107 SE2d 718); *Employers Mut. &c. Co. v. Derwael,*105 Ga. App. 54, 56 (123 SE2d 345). The sole purpose of this rule is to preserve the status quo until such time as the board shall make a new award on the application and such new award becomes final. Under the provisions of *Code*§ 114-711, a judgment may not be entered so long as the award on which the judgment is sought to be based is subject to review by the courts. Under the facts' in this case the trial court did not err in denying the application for a judgment, since it affirmatively appears that the original approved agreement had been superseded by a new award which had not become final within the contemplation of *Code*§ 114-711.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Pannell, J., concur.*
Exhibit 21
 LSI CORPORATION
 Agere Systems American Parkway LP
    
    DelawareAgere Systems Inc.
    
    DelawareAgere Systems LVCC LLC
    
    DelawareAgere Systems Nederland B.V.
    
    NetherlandsC-Cube International Limited
    
    Hong KongC-Cube Microsystems (Asia Pacific) Ltd.
    
    Hong KongC-Cube Microsystems International Ltd.
    
    BermudaC-Cube US, Inc.
    
    DelawareLSI (Spain) Technology Development S.L
    
    SpainLSI (Thai) Ltd.
    
    ThailandLSI Asia Pacific Corporation
    
    DelawareLSI China Technology (Shanghai) Co. Ltd.
    
    ChinaLSI China Trading (Shanghai) Co. Ltd.
    
    ChinaLSI Corporation (Mexico) S.de R.L. de C.V.
    
    MexicoLSI Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG
    
    GermanyLSI Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH
    
    GermanyLSI EMEA Corporation
    
    DelawareLSI Holdings Corporation
    
    DelawareLSI International LLC
    
    DelawareLSI Investments Pte. Ltd.
    
    SingaporeLSI Israel Ltd.
    
    IsraelLSI Japan Ltd.
    
    JapanLSI Logic (Australia) Pty Ltd.
    
    AustraliaLSI Logic AB
    
    SwedenLSI Logic Asia, Inc.
    
    DelawareLSI Logic Corporation of Canada, Company
    
    CanadaLSI Logic Corporation of Korea, Inc.
    
    KoreaLSI Logic Europe Limited
    
    United KingdomLSI Logic GmbH
    
    GermanyLSI Logic HK Holdings
    
    Cayman IslandsLSI Logic Hong Kong Ltd.
    
    Hong KongLSI Logic Hungary LLC
    
    HungaryLSI Logic India Private Limited
    
    IndiaLSI Logic International Services, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaLSI Logic Japan Semiconductor, Inc.
    
    JapanLSI Logic K.K.
    
    JapanLSI Logic Malta Ltd.
    
    MaltaLSI Logic Netherlands B.V.
    
    NetherlandsLSI Logic Resale Corporation
    
    DelawareLSI Logic s.r.l.
    
    ItalyLSI Logic SAS
    
    FranceLSI Logic Singapore Ltd.
    
    SingaporeLSI Logic Storage Systems Europe Holdings Ltd.
    
    IrelandLSI Management Services Corporation
    
    DelawareLSI Research & Development Pune Private Ltd.
    
    IndiaLSI Research (India) Private Limited
    
    IndiaLSI Storage Cyprus Limited
    
    CyprusLSI Storage Ireland Limited
    
    IrelandLSI Technologies Israel Ltd.
    
    Israel




---



##### 



LSI CORPORATION
 LSI Technology (Beijing) Company Ltd.
    
    ChinaLSI Technology (Ireland) Design Ltd.
    
    IrelandLSI Technology (Ireland) Limited
    
    IrelandLSI Technology (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
    
    SingaporeLSI Technology Investments S.L
    
    SpainLSI Technology Limited
    
    United KingdomMedia Computer Technologies, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaMetta Semiconductor Private Ltd.
    
    IndiaMetta Technology (Mauritius)
    
    MauritiusSilicon Manufacturing Partners Pte Ltd. (SMP)*
    
    SingaporeSubLSI (Korea) Co., Ltd.
    
    KoreaVelio Communications International Inc.
    
    Cayman Islands
 
 *
    
    51% LSI Technology (Singapore) Pte Ltd.; 49% Chartered Semiconductor Mfg. Ltd.
<PAGE>

                         Angstrom Technologies, Inc.
                                  Exhibit 11
                                  31-Jul-97

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 Nine Months Ended July 31,          Three Months Ended July 31,
                                                    1997           1996                1997             1996
                                                 --------------------------          ----------------------------
<S>                                              <C>           <C>                   <C>            <C>
Net income (loss)                                    134,931      (327,758)              (33,898)      (147,013)
Preferred stock dividend requirement                (162,900)     (167,000)              (53,300)       (60,100)
Net income (loss) applicable to  
  common stock                                       (27,969)     (494,758)              (87,198)      (207,113)   
Average common shares outstanding                 22,737,833    22,441,749            22,942,997     22,441,749
Earnings (loss) per share                              (0.00)        (0.02)                (0.00)         (0.01)

Fully diluted earnings per share:

Net effect of dilutive common share
  equivalents based on the treasury
  stock method                                     4,928,434     4,766,883             4,928,434      4,766,883 

Effect of conversion of preferred shares           5,429,200     6,005,140             5,429,200      6,005,140

Shares for fully diluted EPS calculation          33,095,467    33,213,772            33,300,631     33,213,772

Fully diluted earnings (loss) per share                (0.00)        (0.01)                (0.00)         (0.01)
</TABLE>
§ 550.505 Entries in certain accounts for normal service charges. ( a ) A U.S. financial institution is authorized to debit any blocked account held at that financial institution in payment or reimbursement for normal service charges owed it by the owner of that blocked account.
( b ) As used in this section, the term *normal service charges* shall include charges in payment or reimbursement for interest due; cable, telegraph, internet, or telephone charges; postage costs; custody fees; small adjustment charges to correct bookkeeping errors; and, but not by way of limitation, minimum balance charges, notary and protest fees, and charges for reference books, photocopies, credit reports, transcripts of statements, registered mail, insurance, stationery and supplies, and other similar items.
Exhibit 21.1

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

                 NAME                          PLACE OF INCORPORATION
                                                   OR ORGANIZATION

C-Cube International Limited (Hong Kong)       Hong Kong
C-Cube Microsystems (Asia Pacific) Limited     Hong Kong
(Hong Kong)
C-Cube Microsystems (Canada) Limited           Canada
C-Cube Microsystems France SAS                 France
C-Cube Microsystems International Ltd          Bermuda
C-Cube Technology Ltd.                         Bermuda
C-Cube U.S.                                    Delaware
LSI Logic A.B.                                 Sweden
LSI Logic Asia, Inc.                           Delaware
LSI Logic Canada Corporation                   Canada
LSI Logic Corporation of Canada, Inc.          Canada
LSI Logic Corporation of Korea, Inc.           Korea
LSI Logic Export Sales Corporation             U.S. Virgin Islands
LSI Logic Europe Limited                       UK
LSI Logic GmbH                                 Germany
LSI Logic HK Holdings                          Cayman
LSI Logic Hong Kong Ltd.                       Hong Kong
LSI Logic International Services, Inc.         California
LSI Logic Japan Semiconductor, Inc.            Japan
LSI Logic KK                                   Japan
LSI Logic Netherlands B.V.                     Netherlands
LSI Logic Resale Corporation                   Delaware
LSI Logic S.A.                                 France
LSI Logic Singapore Ltd.                       Singapore
LSI Logic S.P.A.                               Italy
LSI Logic Storage Systems, Inc.                Delaware
LSI Logic Storage Europe Holdings Ltd.         Ireland
LSI Logic Storage Systems Europe Ltd.          Ireland
LSI Logic Storage Systems International        Delaware
Services, Inc.
Media Computer Technologies, Inc.              California
Symbios International Inc.                     Cayman
VideoLocus Inc.                                Canada
To: China Energy Recovery Inc.


 


This is to confirm that it is my present intention to provide
financial support for the continuing operations of China Energy Recovery Inc. so as to enable it to meet its liabilities as they
fall due and carry on its business without a significant curtailment of operations in the twelve months from December 31, 2011.


 


 


By:  /s/ Mr. Qinghuan Wu


 


March 23, 2012
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       8,944,069
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,134,989
<ALLOWANCES>                                    40,982
<INVENTORY>                                  6,195,763
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            23,497,229
<PP&E>                                       6,938,769
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,992,185
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29,712,235
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,940,549
<BONDS>                                        627,603
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       221,437
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,922,646
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                29,712,235
<SALES>                                      5,167,577
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,167,577
<CGS>                                        3,377,090
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,377,090
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,078,620
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                25,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,457
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (198,030)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (198,030)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (198,030)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)


</TABLE>