alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
`[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 819 Reported in House (RH)]






                                                  Union Calendar No. 24
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 819

                          [Report No. 106-42]

  To authorize appropriations for the Federal Maritime Commission for 
                      fiscal years 2000 and 2001.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 24, 1999

Mr. Shuster (for himself, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Gilchrest, and Mr. DeFazio) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

                             March 4, 1999

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
  To authorize appropriations for the Federal Maritime Commission for 
                      fiscal years 2000 and 2001.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Maritime Commission 
Authorization Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FEDERAL MARITIME 
              COMMISSION.

    There are authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Maritime 
Commission--
            (1) for fiscal year 2000, $15,685,000; and
            (2) for fiscal year 2001, $16,312,000.
                                     





                                                  Union Calendar No. 24

106th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 819

                          [Report No. 106-42]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To authorize appropriations for the Federal Maritime Commission for 
                      fiscal years 2000 and 2001.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 4, 1999

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed`
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.919 Ownership information. ( a ) Applicants or licensees in Wireless Radio Services that are subject to the ownership reporting requirements of § 1.2112 shall use FCC Form 602 to provide all ownership information required by the chapter.
( b ) Any applicant or licensee that is subject to the reporting requirements of § 1.2112 or § 1.2114 shall file an FCC Form 602, or file an updated form if the ownership information on a previously filed FCC Form 602 is not current, at the time it submits: ( 1 ) An initial application for authorization (FCC Form 601);
( 2 ) An application for license renewal (FCC Form 601);
( 3 ) An application for assignment of authorization or transfer of control (FCC Form 603); or
( 4 ) A notification of consummation of a *pro forma* assignment of authorization or transfer of control (FCC Form 603) under the Commission's forbearance procedures (see § 1.948(c) of this part).
( 5 ) An application reporting any reportable eligibility event, as defined in § 1.2114.
( c ) [Reserved]
( d ) A single FCC Form 602 may be associated with multiple applications filed by the same applicant or licensee. If an applicant or licensee already has a current FCC Form 602 on file when it files an initial application, renewal application, application for assignment or transfer of control, or notification of a *pro forma* assignment or transfer, it may certify that it has a current FCC Form 602 on file.
( e ) No filing fee is required to submit or update FCC Form 602.
( f ) Applicants or licensees in Wireless Radio Services that are not subject to the ownership reporting requirements of § 1.2112 are not required to file FCC Form 602. However, such applicants and licensees may be required by the rules applicable to such services to disclose the real party (or parties) in interest to the application, including (as required) a complete disclosure of the identity and relationship of those persons or entities directly or indirectly owning or controlling (or both) the applicant or licensee.
[63 FR 68923, Dec. 14, 1998, as amended at 68 FR 42995, July 21, 2003; 69 FR 75170, Dec. 15, 2004; 71 FR 26251, May 4, 2006; 79 FR 72150, Dec. 5, 2014]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR ITS QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED INN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000007610
<NAME> ARTISTIC GREETINGS INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1.00
<CASH>                                              38
<SECURITIES>                                     2,848
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,155
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,574
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,913
<PP&E>                                          27,832
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,795     
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  29,507
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,727
<BONDS>                                            998
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           604
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,398
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,507
<SALES>                                         24,218
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,218
<CGS>                                            9,512
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,550
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    17
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  60
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,079
<INCOME-TAX>                                       388
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                691
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       691
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

Tuesday, June 2, 1998
COMPANY PRESS RELEASE
Source: COHR Inc.

               COHR ANNOUNCES APPOINTMENT OF NEW MANAGEMENT TEAM


Chatsworth, CA. - COHR Inc. (NASDAQ-CHRI) today announced effective immediately
that Raymond E. List has been appointed President, Chief Executive Officer and
elected a Director. Mr. List, 54, currently serves as Managing General Partner
of Fairfax Partners, an investment and management firm with offices in
California and Virginia. Mr. List previously served as Chairman and President of
ICF Kaiser Engineers, a technical, scientific and consulting services company.

COHR also announced that Peter T. Socha has been appointed Executive Vice
President. Mr. Socha, 39, previously served as President and Chief Executive
Officer of MedEcon Services, Inc., a healthcare services company. Mr. Socha's
other experience includes senior positions with Sirrom Capital Corporation, a
financial services company headquartered in Nashville, TN.

The new senior management team will also include Daniel F. Clark, Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer, who joined the company in December 1997.
David Roesler and Ed Gravell will continue in their senior management roles with
the Purchase Connection division of the company. Interim President/CEO Steve
Gamble remains a director and will assist new management in its transition.

COHR also announced that, in connection with the appointment of the new
management team, Sandy Morford, formerly Chief Operating Officer, and Haresh
Satiani, formerly Senior Vice President - MasterPlan, have left the company.

The Board also announced that, prior to these changes, Mike Matsuura for
personal and family health reasons had resigned from the Board.

Lynn Reitnouer, Chairman of the Board, stated that "the changes in management
will provide opportunities and benefits for the Company and its shareholders,
customers, and employees, and we believe that this new management team will
enable COHR to position itself effectively for the future. The Board will
continue the process to consider strategic alternatives to maximize shareholder
value."

COHR Inc., a leading national healthcare outsourcing and contract service
organization, serves hospitals, integrated health systems and alternate site
providers with a wide range of essential services and supplies.
No. 11-5131.

#### Washington *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>      THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
              INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE JAGUAR INVESTMENTS
              INC. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE
              30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
              REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>  1

<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                              69
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    69
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      69
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              160
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,390
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,604
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        69
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,455
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,455)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,455)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,455)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)


</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.248 Status conferences. ( a ) The presiding officer may direct the parties or their attorneys to appear at a specified time and place for a status conference during the course of a hearing proceeding, or to submit suggestions in writing, for the purpose of considering, among other things, the matters set forth in paragraph (c) of this section. Any party may request a status conference at any time after release of the order designating a matter for hearing. During a status conference, the presiding officer may issue rulings regarding matters relevant to the conduct of the hearing proceeding including, *inter alia,* procedural matters, discovery, and the submission of briefs or evidentiary materials.
( b ) The presiding officer shall schedule an initial status conference promptly after written appearances have been submitted under § 1.91 or § 1.221. At or promptly after the initial status conference, the presiding officer shall adopt a schedule to govern the hearing proceeding. If the Commission designated a matter for hearing on a written record under §§ 1.370 through 1.376, the scheduling order shall include a deadline for filing a motion to request an oral hearing in accordance with § 1.376. If the Commission did not designate the matter for hearing on a written record, the scheduling order shall include a deadline for filing a motion to conduct the hearing on a written record. Except as circumstances otherwise require, the presiding officer shall allow a reasonable period prior to commencement of the hearing for the orderly completion of all prehearing procedures, including discovery, and for the submission and disposition of all motions.
( c ) In status conferences, the following matters, among others, may be considered: ( 1 ) Clarifying, amplifying, or narrowing issues designated for hearing;
( 2 ) Scheduling;
( 3 ) Admission of facts and of the genuineness of documents (see § 1.246), and the possibility of stipulating with respect to facts;
( 4 ) Discovery;
( 5 ) Motions;
( 6 ) Hearing procedure;
( 7 ) Settlement (see § 1.93); and
( 8 ) Such other matters that may aid in resolution of the issues designated for hearing.
( d ) Status conferences may be conducted in person or by telephone conference call or similar technology, at the discretion of the presiding officer. An official transcript of all status conferences shall be made unless the presiding officer and the parties agree to forego a transcript, in which case any rulings by the presiding officer during the status conference shall be promptly memorialized in writing.
( e ) The failure of any attorney or party, following reasonable notice, to appear at a scheduled status conference may be deemed a waiver by that party of its rights to participate in the hearing proceeding and shall not preclude the presiding officer from conferring with parties or counsel present.
[85 FR 63177, Oct. 6, 2020]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 130 (Thursday, July 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41682-41683]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-17098]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special 
Emphasis Panel Phase II SBIR: ``Prevention Activities Handbook: A 
Practioner's Guide to Selecting and Implementing Interactive Drug 
Use Prevention Activities for Children and Adolescents''.
    Date: July 18, 2000.
    Time: 10 a.m. to 12 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: Neuroscience Center, National Institutes of Health, 6001 
Executive Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Eric Zatman, Contract Review Specialist, Office 
of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National 
Institutes of Health, DHHS, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 3158, MSC 
9547, Bethesda, MD 20892-9547, (301) 435-1438.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special 
Emphasis Panel ``Clinical Trial Network Administrative Coordinating 
Center''.
    Date: July 25-26, 2000.
    Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

[[Page 41683]]

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: DoubleTree Hotel, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 
20852.
    Contact Person: Lyle Furr, Contract Review Specialist, Office of 
Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National 
Institutes of Health, DHHS, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 3158, MSC 
9547, Bethesda, MD 20892-9547, (301) 435-1439.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.277, Drug 
Abuse Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, Scientist 
Development Awards, and Research Scientist Awards; 93.278, Drug 
Abuse National Research Service Awards for Research Training; 
93.279, Drug Abuse Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, 
HHS)

    Dated: June 29, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-17098 Filed 7-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
46594.

#### GEORGIA STATE BOARD OF DISPENSING OPTICIANS v. DUNAWAY DRUG STORES, INC.

(378 SE2d 116)

Smith, Justice.

The appellant, Georgia State Board of Dispensing Opticians, filed a complaint for injunctive relief against the appellee, Dunaway Drug Stores, Inc., in which it alleged that the appellee was engaging in the unlicensed practice of dispensing opticianry in violation of OCGA Ch. 43-29. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted the appellee’s motion and denied the appellant’s. We affirm.

The trial court found the following:

> [A] customer merely places an order with the [appellee’s] employee for contact lenses and provides a prescription from an optometrist or physician licensed in the State of Georgia. [The Appellee’s] employee consults a price list, quotes a price to the customer, and forwards the prescription and order directly to its contact lens supplier. [The Appellee’s] con*195tact lens supplier is Contact Lens Supply, Inc., hereinafter referred to as CLS, which is located in the State of Ohio. The customer’s prescription is reviewed by CLS employees who are opticians licensed in Ohio working under the supervision of an optometrist licensed in Ohio. CLS provides lenses according to the prescription as interpreted by the optician and supervising optometrist in Ohio. The supplier obtains its lenses from the name brand manufacturers specified in the prescription such as “CIBA” or “Bausch and Lomb.” The supplier then forwards the lenses in the manufacturer’s sealed container to [the appellee]. [The appellee’s] employees deliver the lenses, still in the manufacturer’s sealed container to the customer.

Decided April 6, 1989

Reconsideration denied May 3, 1989.

*Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Stephanie B. Manis, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Janet M. Bolt, Staff Assistant Attorney General, C. LaTain Kell,*for appellant.

*Awtrey & Parker, A. Sidney Parker,*for appellee.

Order of the Cobb Superior Court at 155.

Literature accompanying each filled prescription advises the customer to return to the prescribing optometrist or physician.

The appellant enumerates two errors in which it generally contends that the trial court erred in failing to find that appellee Dunaway is dispensing contact lenses in violation of OCGA Ch. 43-29.

Under the facts of this case, the appellee is merely a conduit; its activities do not fall under any of the prohibitions in OCGA Ch. 43-29.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"2017-2497: General Electric Company v. United Technologies Corp. - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"GMf1zBkp2e\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-07-2018-2017-2497-general-electric-company-v-united-technologies-corp-audio-uploaded\/\">2017-2497: General Electric Company v. United Technologies Corp.<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-07-2018-2017-2497-general-electric-company-v-united-technologies-corp-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=GMf1zBkp2e\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2017-2497: General Electric Company v. United Technologies Corp.” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"GMf1zBkp2e\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Oral argument audio posted: General Electric Company v. United Technologies Corp. (mp3) Appeal Number: 2017-2497 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}