alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3435

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Brian Todd Tracy, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 6, 2010

Filed: May 11, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Brian Tracy was charged with possessing child pornography, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B) and (b)(2). Tracy pleaded guilty in accord with a written plea

agreement, which contained an appeal waiver. The district court1

 sentenced Tracy to

84 months in prison, below the advisory Guidelines range. On appeal, counsel has

moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

challenging the reasonableness of the sentence and the adequacy of the plea-hearing

colloquy.
-2-

We will enforce the appeal waiver in this case because Tracy’s appeal falls

within the scope of the waiver, the record shows the requisite knowledge and

voluntariness, and enforcing the appeal waiver would not constitute a miscarriage of

justice. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc)

(court should enforce appeal waiver and dismiss appeal where appeal falls within

scope of waiver, both plea agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and

voluntarily, and no miscarriage of justice would result); see also United States v.

Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal

waiver in Anders case). 

Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issue not covered by the waiver.

Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we dismiss this appeal. 

______________________________
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JOHN R. MEREDITH,

Appellant,

v.

MARILYN JEAN,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 16

- 00204

- CV

Appeal from

98th District Court

of Travis County, Texas

(TC # D

- 1

- GN

- 15

- 004979 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on its own motion to determine whether it should be

dismissed for want of prosecution. Finding that t he clerk ’ s record has not been filed due to the

fault of the Appellant, John R. Meredith

, we dismiss the appeal for want o f prosecution.

Unless othe rwise excused, a non

- indigent appellant must either pay for or make

arrangements for the payment of the fees related to preparation of the appellate record to ensure

that the record is timely filed. T EX .R.A PP .P. 35.3(a)(2), (b) (3); see T EX .R.A PP .P. 37.3(b), (c).

The clerk’s record was due to be filed on September 2 6

, 2016. The Bell County District Clerk

notified the Court that the clerk’s record would not be filed because Appellant ha d not made

financial arrangements to pay fo r the record. In accordance with Rule 37.3(b), the Clerk of the

Court notified Appellant by letter regarding h is failure to make financial arrangements to pay for

the clerk’s record and advised Appellant that the appeal would be dismissed for want of- 2

-

pros ecution unless he responded within ten days and showed grounds for continuing the appeal.

See T EX .R.A PP .P. 37.3(b). Appellant has not filed any written response or otherwise showed that

grounds exist for the appeal to be continued. Pursuant to Rules 37. 3(b) a nd 42.3(b) and (c) , we

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b), (c).

January 4, 2017

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.

Hughes, J., not participating
§ 349.28 Customer dispute resolution. ( a ) *Voluntary submission of claims to dispute or settlement procedures.* No FDIC-supervised insured depository institution may enter into any agreement or understanding with a retail forex customer in which the customer agrees, prior to the time a claim or grievance arises, to submit such claim or grievance to any settlement procedure.
( b ) *Election of forum.* ( 1 ) Within ten business days after receipt of notice from the retail forex customer that the customer intends to submit a claim to arbitration, the FDIC-supervised insured depository institution must provide the customer with a list of persons qualified in dispute resolution.
( 2 ) The customer shall, within 45 days after receipt of such list, notify the FDIC-supervised insured depository institution of the person selected. The customer's failure to provide such notice shall give the FDIC-supervised insured depository institution the right to select a person from the list.
( c ) *Enforceability.* A dispute settlement procedure may require parties using such procedure to agree, under applicable state law, submission agreement or otherwise, to be bound by an award rendered in the procedure, provided that the agreement to submit the claim or grievance to the voluntary procedure under paragraph (a) of this section or that agreement to submit the claim or grievance was made after the claim or grievance arose. Any award so rendered shall be enforceable in accordance with applicable law.
( d ) *Time limits for submission of claims.* The dispute settlement procedure used by the parties shall not include any unreasonably short limitation period foreclosing submission of a customer's claims or grievances or counterclaims.
( e ) *Counterclaims.* A procedure for the settlement of a retail forex customer's claims or grievances against an FDIC-supervised insured depository institution or employee thereof may permit the submission of a counterclaim in the procedure by a person against whom a claim or grievance is brought. Such a counterclaim may be permitted where it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject of the customer's claim or grievance and does not require for adjudication the presence of essential witnesses, parties, or third persons over which the settlement process lacks jurisdiction.
[76 FR 40789, July 12, 2011. Redesignated at 80 FR 74912, Nov. 30, 2015]
**Exhibit 21.1**

List of Subsidiaries 

Supreme International, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company formerly known as Supreme International, Inc. 

Jantzen, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company formerly known as Jantzen, Inc. 

Perry Ellis Menswear, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company formerly known as Perry Ellis Menswear, Inc. 

Perry Ellis Europe Limited, a privatelimited company incorporated in England and Wales 

Salant Holding, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company formerly known as Salant Holding Corporation

PEI Licensing, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

Jantzen Apparel,LLC, a Delaware limited liability company formerly known as Jantzen Apparel Corp. 

Supreme Real Estate I, LLC, a Florida limited liability company

Supreme Real Estate II, LLC, a Florida limited liability company 

Supreme Realty, LLC, a Florida limited liability company 

Supreme Munsingwear Canada Inc., a Canada corporation 

Supreme International Canada Co. Limited, a Canada corporation 

Perry EllisShared Services Corporation, a Delaware corporation 

Winnsboro DC, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

Tampa DC, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

Tampa DC Holdings, LLC,a Delaware limited liability company 

Perry Ellis International Group Holdings Limited, a private company incorporated under the laws of Ireland 

Perry Ellis International Europe Limited, a private company incorporated under the laws of Ireland 

Perry Ellis International HK Limited, a private company incorporated under the laws of Hong Kong 

Perry Ellis InternationalEurope SARL, a private company incorporated under the laws of France 

Perry Ellis Real Estate, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company formerly known asPerry Ellis Real Estate Corporation 

Grand Team Holdings Limited, a private company incorporated under the laws of Hong Kong 

Laundry, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

C&C California, LLC,a Delaware limited liability company
**
**Exhibit 12.2**

I, Vittorio Notarpietro, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed thisannual report on Form 20-F of Natuzzi S.p.A.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement 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 thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The company’sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for thecompany and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, 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) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed underour supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period coveredby the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’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 arereasonably likely to adversely affect the company’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 company’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: April 30, 2019 

 

/s/ Vittorio Notarpietro
Name: Vittorio NotarpietroTitle: Chief Financial Officer**
# C_2005040EN.01001901.xml

| 17.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 40/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 40/19

---

National reference laboratory designated by Norway in accordance with Council Decision 1999/313/EC on reference laboratories for monitoring bacteriological and viral contamination of bivalve molluscs

(2005/C 40/12)

| The Norwegian School of Veterinary Science |
| --- |
| Department of Food Safety and Infection Biology |
| P.O. Box 8146 Dep. |
| N-0033 Oslo |

The Norwegian School of Veterinary Science

Department of Food Safety and Infection Biology

P.O. Box 8146 Dep.

N-0033 Oslo

---
§ 263.450 Scope. ( a ) The procedures of this subpart must be followed when a formal investigation is instituted and conducted pursuant to: section 8(n) of the FDIA (12 U.S.C. 1818(n)); section 10(c) of the FDIA (12 U.S.C. 1820(c)); section 7(j)(15) of the FDIA (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(15)); section 5(f) of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1844(f)); sections 10(b)(4) and 10(g)(2) of HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1464(b)(4) and 1467a(g)(2)); or section 162 of the Dodd-Frank Act (12 U.S.C. 5362).
( b ) Nothing in this subpart prohibits the Board from conducting informal investigations or obtaining information by any means other than a subpoena issued pursuant to this subpart.
( c ) This subpart does not apply to adjudicatory proceedings as to which hearings are required by statute, the rules for which are contained in part 262 of this chapter and subpart A of this part.
#### Gladys L. Trask *v.*New Haven & Shore Line Railway Company, Inc., et al.

Maltbie, C. J., Avert, Brown, Jennings and Ells, Js.

Argued April 2

decided May 8, 1941.

*Milton Nahum,*with whom, on the brief, were *Nathan A. Schatz*and *Louis M. Schatz,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*William H. Tribou,*with whom, on the brief, was *Edward I. Taylor,*for the appellee (named defendant).

*DeLancey Pelgrift,*for the appellee (defendant Trask).

Per Curiam.

The main issue in this case is whether the court could have reasonably concluded that neither defendant was guilty of negligence. The following facts were found: The plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile being driven by her husband the defendant Trask, from Saybrook to Hartford. A bus was being operated by the defendant company on the same highway in the opposite direction. The accident occurred about 4.30 p.m. on February 2, 1939, on a hill. The road here was straight for eight hundred feet and the grade descended toward Middletown. It was eighteen feet wide, crowned and constructed of bituminous macadam. The day had been rainy and a light rain *725or mist was falling. Just before the accident ice formed, but neither operator had encountered any icy or slippery condition until he reached the hill in question. As the bus started up this grade, its wheels began to slip and it went over to its left side of the road. The operator then backed it to get onto his right side and apply chains. He had nearly reached his own side of the road when the accident happened. As Trask descended the grade his car went into a skid and out of control. The skid continued in spite of his efforts to check it until his car crashed into the bus, seriously injuring the plaintiff.

The plaintiff attacks this finding but no change can be made therein which will affect the issues on the appeal. Her effort in this regard having failed, it is obvious that the case presented a question of fact for the trier. *Farrell*v. *Waterbury Horse R. Co.,*60 Conn. 239, 249, 250, 21 Atl. 675. The plaintiff seeks to have the finding corrected to state that the highway, as it ascended to the crest of the grade from the direction of Saybrook, had become icy, and that the driver of the car should have perceived this in the reasonable exercise of his faculties; but, even if we could correct the finding to show that the highway had in fact become icy, we could not conclude as matter of law that the driver under the circumstances should have perceived this before the car began to skid. The skidding of the car would only be the basis of finding that the driver was negligent if it was due to some negligent conduct on his part; *Nichols*v. *Nichols,*126 Conn. 614, 619, 13 Atl. (2d) 591; the finding states no such conduct and we cannot conclude as matter of law that it existed. Nothing in the finding requires a conclusion that the actions or omissions of the driver of the bus were negligent.

There is no error.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF JULY 1, 2000 AND THE STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE FIFTY-TWO WEEKS
ENDED JULY 1, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-01-2000
<CASH>                                           4,008
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,868
<ALLOWANCES>                                       406
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,817
<PP&E>                                         111,275
<DEPRECIATION>                                  54,842
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 165,647
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,606
<BONDS>                                        182,319
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           47,314
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                   (123,659)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   165,647
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               371,037
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  365,952
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,880
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,632)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (5,085)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,547)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,547)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                            LEASE EXTENSION AGREEMENT

This agreement is dated October 12, 1999 for reference purposes and is an
additional modification to the current Lease dated November 30, 1990 between
Charles A. Grant and Mark Greenberg (LESSOR) and Urnotech Calypte Biomedical
Corporation (LESSEE) for the property known as 1440 Fourth Street, Berkeley,
California:

1) LEASE EXTENDED THROUGH AUGUST 2000. The Lease is hereby extended five months
through August 31, 2000. The lease rate for this extension period will remain
$27,000 per month.

2) HOLDING OVER. If LESSEE remains in possession of the premises per Paragraph
26 (Holding Over), then the agreed monthly rent is $29,000.



SIGNED:     /s/  Charles A. Grant        G.P.                10/12/99
       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
           FOR LESSOR                   TITLE                 DATE


SIGNED:     /s/  Nancy E. Katz        President             10/28/99
       -------------------------------------------------------------------------
           FOR LESSOR                   TITLE                 DATE
#### MULLIGAN V. THE STATE.

(Decided April 15, 1913.)

Appeal from Morgan Law and Equity Court.

Heard before Hon. Thomas W. Wert.

Wert & Lynne, for appellant. R. C. Brickell, Attorney General, and W. L. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Walker, P. J. —

Reversed and remanded on the authority of *Yeager v. State,*8 Ala. App. 374, 62 South. 318.
#### § 349.20 Capital requirements.

An FDIC-supervised insured depository institution offering or entering into retail forex transactions must be well capitalized as defined by 12 CFR part 324, unless specifically exempted by the FDIC in writing.

[83 FR 17741, Apr. 24, 2018]
<PAGE>

           [LOGO]

     CBAO
DIRECTEUR DES GRANDES ENTREPRISES
ID/ASC N 93/00






                             Dakar, le 13 juin 2000
                             FORTESA INTERNATIONAL SENEGAL







Messieurs,


Nous faisons suite a nos differents entretiens et          vous informons accord
que la Comite de Credit de la CBAO a MARQUE son            pour le pipe-lice
financement de votre proj et de cons TRUCTION d'une les    selon
conditions suivantes



   - montant          USD 1 million en contrevaleur ECFA
   - taux             8 7 + TON (17 7)
   - duree           12 mois sans differe
   -   garanties
       K Contregarantie de Africap LLC a hauteur de USD 500.000 K
       Nantissement du marche SENELEC
       K Nantissement des actifs FORTESA Senegal.

Nous vous souhaitons bonne reception de la presenLe et vous prions d~agreer,
Messieurs, l'expression de nos sentiments distingues.
ARISTIDES C. ALCANTARA S C.
MOUSSA DIOP










                   COMPAGNIE BANCAIRE DE L'AFRIQUE OCCIDENTAL
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3025

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the deduction from 

gross income for certain expenses of elementary and secondary school 

teachers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 5, 2003

Mr. HINOJOSA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

the deduction from gross income for certain expenses 

of elementary and secondary school teachers.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Teacher Tax Relief 

5 Act of 2003’’. 
2

•HR 3025 IH 

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF DEDUCTION FROM GROSS INCOME 

2 FOR CERTAIN EXPENSES OF ELEMENTARY 

3 AND SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (D) of section 

5 62(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 

6 to certain trade or business deductions of employees) is 

7 amended by striking ‘‘during 2002 or 2003’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘after 2001 and before 2009’’. 

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

10 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

11 December 31, 2002.

Æ
June 22, 2000


J. Roger Faherty
C/O Directrix, Inc.
236 West 26th Street, Suite 12W
New York, New York 10001

Re: Employment Agreement effective as of March 15, 1999

Dear Mr. Faherty:

We refer to the Employment  Agreement between Directrix,  Inc. and you effective
as of March 15, 1999 ("Employment  Agreement").  All terms not otherwise defined
herein shall have the same meaning as in the Employment Agreement. We also refer
to the Option  Agreement dated July 15, 2000  ("Original  Option") which granted
you an option to acquire 50,000 shares of Directrix  Common Stock at an exercise
price of $6.4375  per share and which  provided  for one third of the options to
vest 6 months after grant, a second  one-third to vest 12 months after grant and
the final one-third to vest 18 months after grant.

         1.  Salary Reduction.  At our  request, you have  agreed to a temporary
reduction in your Base Salary from  $405,169 to $205,000 effective  with the pay
period  beginning  June 24,  2000 and through  the end of our  fiscal year ended
March 31, 2001.

         2.  Option  Replacement.  In  consideration  of your  agreement  to the
reduction in your Base Salary  provided for above,  we will replace the Original
Option  previously  granted  to you with the  attached  Option  Agreement  ("New
Option").  The New Option is the same as the Original Option except that the New
Option  provides for an exercise  price of $4.00 per share and the New Option is
fully vested. The Original Option is hereby cancelled.

If the foregoing  correctly reflects you agreement with the matters provided for
herein, please sign below.

We appreciate your support of Directrix.

Sincerely,
DIRECTRIX, INC.




By:_________________________________
   Donald J. McDonald, Jr.,
   President


AGREED TO:



____________________________________
J. Roger Faherty