alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

WATER HEATER ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS

Forrestal Building

Room 1E-245

July 23, 1999

9:00 a.m.

PRELIMINARY AGENDA

Expected Outcomes: Receive comments on the analysis, recommendations on standard levels

andfactors to consider in setting standards.

9:00 am - 9:05 am Welcome (Dan Reicher)-

9:05 am - 9:20 am Introductions and Agenda Review (DougBrookman)

* Housekeeping

* Introduction

* Agenda Review

9:20 am - 9:30 am Assistant Secretary's Remarks (Dan Reicher)

9:30 am - 10:15 am Summary of DOE Results (Terry Logee)

* Price-efficiency, LCC, Energy Savings, NPV & Emissions

* Manufacturing Impacts

10:15 am - 10:30 am Break

10:30 am - 2:00 pm Summary of Comments (Michael McCabe)

(after each topic there will be an opportunity for stakeholder

discussion)

* Engineering, e.g., venting, heat traps, hot water usage, insulation

· Small Water Heater Closets

* Price & Markup, e.g., gas equipment markups, installation costs

* Marginal Energy Rates

· Life-cycle Cost, e.g., RECS Data, blended fuel projections

· National Energy Savings, e.g., fuel-switching

* Measured EF vs Rated EF

* Standards Recommendation

12:00 pm - 1:00 pm Lunch on Your Own

EE-RM-97-900 COMMENT 78BB
2:00 pm - 4:00 pm Discussion Questions (Dan Reicher)

Including:

· What standard levels do you believe the analysis justifies?

* We have a recommendation from GAMA that appears to be the

beginning of a consensus process. What should DOE do to

continue this dialogue?

* What can DOE do to help the industry meet the new standards in

the time between the final rule and the effective date of the

rulemaking, e.g. NFGC, CPSC initiatives?

* When DOE completes this rulemaking, what steps could the

Department take to support and increase the market demand for

water heaters which will exceed the new minimum standards, e.g.

Energy Star program, FEMP executive order?

4:00 pm Adjourn

EE-RM-97-900 COMMENT 78BB
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          14,320
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,850
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     38,135
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                91,653
<PP&E>                                          96,692
<DEPRECIATION>                                  51,316
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 147,298
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,483
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,851
<OTHER-SE>                                     114,598
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   147,298
<SALES>                                        225,789
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               225,789
<CGS>                                          156,677
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  156,677
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   484
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  79
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,282
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,160
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,122
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,122
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.82
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 18, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-50878 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FERNANDO DE HOYOS-GARCIA, also known as Fernando De-Hoves, also known as Victor Fernando De-Hoyos, also known as Fernando Garcia, also known as Juan Renteria, also known as Richard Castillo, also known as Henry Garza, also known as Fernando Garza, also known as Fernando Garcia-Hoyas, also known as Fernando De Hoyos-Garcia, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-03-CR-130-ALL-FB

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Fernando De Hoyos-Garcia appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. De Hoyos-Garcia contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the priorNo. 03-50878 -2- conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. De Hoyos-Garcia maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. De Hoyos-Garcia acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu ofNo. 03-50878 -3- filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Exhibit 21

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES  OF  FURNITURE BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

|Name of Subsidiary                        |  | Jurisdiction of
Incorporation
|----------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Action Transport, Inc.                    |  | Delaware                     
|Broyhill Furniture Industries, Inc.       |  | North Carolina               
|Broyhill Home Furnishings, Inc.           |  | Delaware                     
|Broyhill Retail, Inc.                     |  | Delaware                     
|Broyhill Transport, Inc.                  |  | North Carolina               
|Decorative Hardware Solutions (L) Bhd.    |  | Malaysia                     
|Fayette Enterprises, Inc.                 |  | Mississippi                  
|HDM Furniture Industries, Inc.            |  | Delaware                     
|HDM Transport, Inc.                       |  | North Carolina               
|HDM Retail, Inc.                          |  | Delaware                     
|Henredon Designer Showrooms, Inc.         |  | Delaware                     
|Hickory Business Furniture, Inc.          |  | North Carolina               
|Lane Furniture Industries, Inc.           |  | Mississippi                  
|Lane Home Furnishings Retail, Inc.        |  | Delaware                     
|Laneventure, Inc.                         |  | Delaware                     
|Maitland-Smith Asia Holdings Limited      |  | Vanuatu                      
|Maitland-Smith Cebu, Inc.                 |  | Philippines                  
|Maitland-Smith Furniture Industries, Inc. |  | Delaware                     
|Maitland-Smith Limited                    |  | Hong Kong                    
|P.T. Maitland-Smith Indonesia             |  | Indonesia                    
|Maitland-Smith Export (L) Bhd.            |  | Malaysia                     
|The Lane Company, Incorporated            |  | Virginia                     
|Thomasville Furniture Industries, Inc.    |  | Delaware                     
|Thomasville Home Furnishings, Inc.        |  | Delaware                     
|Thomasville Retail, Inc.                  |  | Virginia                     

Lane
Furniture Industries, Inc. also does business as Laneventure.

Thomasville
Furniture Industries, Inc. also does business as HBF, Founders, Creative Interiors and Vignettes. HDM Furniture Industries, Inc. also does business as Hickory
Chair Company and The Pearson Company.

---



QuickLinks
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED

April 6, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-11158 Summary Calendar

CONCHITA WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LUCY MALLISHAM, Warden, Federal Medical Center-Carswell; HARLEY LAPPIN, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; FEDERAL
BUREAU OF PRISONS,

Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas

(4:03-CV-1227-A)

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

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiff-Appellant Conchita Washington, federal prisoner #

14826-039, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of her

civil-rights lawsuit, filed pursuant t o 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for

failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted and as

frivol o us. Washington argues that Program Statement 1351.05,

issued by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, violates t he Federal

Register Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, the Equal Access2

to Justice Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and the Due Process

Clause. As her arguments fail to raise a cognizable issue under 42

U.S.C. § 1983, the dismissal of her instant complaint pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted was proper. See Black v. Warren , 134

F.3d 732, 733-34 (5th Cir. 1998).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. The

district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim counts as

one strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and our affirmance

of that dismissal as frivolous counts as a second strike. S ee

Adepegba v. Hammons

, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). Washington

is warned that if she accumulates three strikes, she may not

proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while

she is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless she is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury. S ee 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g).

AFFIRMED; STRIKE WARNING ISSUED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         13,831,031
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3,893,428
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         68,589,793
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (44,261,629)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 49,762,234
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     6,721,813
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   49,762,234
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               145,666,687
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  28,745,559
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               331,203
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             3,842,192
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   112,747,733
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)

I, Philip Kives, certify that:

1.               Ihave reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of K-tel International, Inc.;

2.               Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.               Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a.               Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b.              Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c.               Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a.               Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b.              Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

Date:  November22, 2006
|   | /s/ Philip Kives                       |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   | Philip Kives                           |
|   | President and  Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEE ANDREW REED,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0936 LKK GGH P

vs.

S. HAFERKAMP, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action seeking

relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On August 18, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Case 2:04-cv-00936-LKK -GGH Document 33 Filed 09/20/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 18, 2005, are adopted in full;

and

2. Plaintiff’s claim in the July 7, 2005, second amended complaint that

defendants caused him to fall in the shower is dismissed.

DATED: September 19, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/reed0936.805

Case 2:04-cv-00936-LKK -GGH Document 33 Filed 09/20/05 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:04-cv-00035-DFL -KJM   Document 32    Filed 05/12/06   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-26T22:05:50-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
No. 52585.

protests 48622-K, etc. (San Francisco).

#### The American Express Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries involved. The protests were sustained to this extent.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LYNN HUBBARD, III, SBN 69773

SCOTTLYNN J HUBBARD IV, SBN 212970

LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD, III

12 WILLIAMSBURG LANE

CHICO, CA 95926

Telephone: (530) 895-3252

Fax: (530) 894-8244

Attorneys for Plaintiff

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES SANFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

HARLEY-DAVIDSON OF

SACRAMENTO, INC.; MICHAEL W.

SHATTUCK, TRUSTEE OF THE

MICHAEL W. SHATTUCK 2003 TRUST,

Defendant.

 

Case No. CIV.S-04-1101 DFL KJM

ORDER FOR DISMISSAL

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint of plaintiff, USDC Case No.

CIV.S-04-1101 DFL KJM, is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: 4/18/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

Chief United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01101-DFL -KJM Document 10 Filed 04/20/05 Page 1 of 1
Attachment 005 ----- Process Flow Charts and Notes---Sites Controlled by Submitter

Material redacted ---Confidential Business Information
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000052617
<NAME> IRWIN FINANCIAL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          68,942
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          18,441
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 8,850
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                32,148
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      6,266
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          48,055
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            48,537
<LOANS>                                        556,991
<ALLOWANCE>                                      9,888
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,946,179
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,009,211
<SHORT-TERM>                                   644,861
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             96,036
<LONG-TERM>                                      2,839
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           47,999
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        29,965
<OTHER-SE>                                     115,268
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,946,179
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 52,329
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                4,166
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                65,891
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               122,386
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              23,340
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              59,202
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           63,184
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    5,995
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 113
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                245,436
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 55,482
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      55,482
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    30,503
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.40<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.38<F1>
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     .04<F2>
<LOANS-NON>                                     11,222
<LOANS-PAST>                                       632
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 8,812
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,502
<RECOVERIES>                                       559
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                9,888
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             9,888
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          3,935
<FN>
<F1>Information not in 1,000 and earnings per share reported in basic and 
diluted.
<F2>Information not in 1,000
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
No. 63627.

protest 321350-K (Buffalo).

#### C. J. Tower & Sons of Buffalo, Inc. *v.*United States,

*446Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance witli stipulation of counsel that the merchandise on the invoice accompanying entry 21012 consists of ferrosilicon containing 8 percent or more of silicon and less than 60 percent, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.