alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
K-tel International, Inc.  2001 Form 10-K  Exhibit 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

Subsidiaries of the Company and the jurisdiction in which each company was incorporated are listed below. Unless otherwise indicated, all of the voting
securities of each subsidiary are owned by K-tel International, Inc. or one of its subsidiaries.

K-tel International (USA), Inc.
Minneapolis, Minnesota (a Minnesota corporation)Dominion Entertainment, Inc.
Minneapolis, Minnesota (a Minnesota corporation)K-tel Ireland Limited
Dublin, Ireland (an Ireland Corporation)K-tel Entertainment (CAN) Inc.
(formerly ERA International, Ltd.)
Winnipeg, Manitoba (a Canada corporation)K-tel Marketing Limited
London, England (an England corporation)K-tel Entertainment (U.K.) Ltd.
London, England (an England corporation)K-tel (Australia) Pty. Limited
Southport, Queensland, Australia (an Australian corporation)Seminars, Inc.
Minneapolis, Minnesota (a Minnesota corporation)K-tel Consumer Products, Inc.
Minneapolis, Minnesota (a Minnesota corporation)K-tel Direct, Inc.
Minneapolis, Minnesota (a Minnesota corporation)K-tel TV, Inc.
Minneapolis, Minnesota (a Minnesota corporation)K-tel Video, Inc.
Minneapolis, Minnesota (a Minnesota corporation)K-tel DVD, Inc.
Minneapolis, Minnesota (a Minnesota corporation)K-tel Online, Inc.
Minneapolis, Minnesota (a Minnesota corporation)K-tel Entertainment, Inc.
Minneapolis, Minnesota (a Minnesota corporation)K-tel Services, Inc.
Minneapolis, Minnesota (a Minnesota corporation)


---

QuickLinks
No. 54648.

#### Advanced Ring Manufacturers, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 149527-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the-merchandise consists of synthetic stones the same in all material respects as those-the subject of *S. Nathan & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 426), the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1528 was sustained.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4254 

To limit the closure or consolidation of any United States Postal Service 

processing and distribution center in States, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 2, 2024 

Mr. TESTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To limit the closure or consolidation of any United States 

Postal Service processing and distribution center in 

States, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Protecting Access to 

5 Rural Carriers for Every Location Act’’ or the ‘‘PARCEL 

6 Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON CLOSING OR CONSOLIDATING 

8 POSTAL SERVICE PROCESSING AND DIS9 TRIBUTION CENTERS IN STATES. 

10 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4254 IS

1 (1) PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION CENTER.— 

2 The term ‘‘processing and distribution center’’ 

3 means a central mail facility that— 

4 (A) distributes and dispatches part or all 

5 of both incoming mail and outgoing mail for a 

6 designated service area; 

7 (B) provides instructions on the prepara8 tion of collection mail, dispatch schedules, and 

9 sorting plan requirements to mailers; and 

10 (C) is a sectional center facility, a general 

11 mail facility, or a dedicated mail processing fa12 cility without a station or branch. 

13 (2) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means a State 

14 or the District of Columbia. 

15 (b) PROHIBITION.—The United States Postal Service 

16 may not close, consolidate, downgrade, or take any other 

17 similar action with respect to a processing and distribution 

18 center in a State if such action would result in— 

19 (1) the processing operations of the processing 

20 and distribution center being relocated outside the 

21 boundaries of the State; or 

22 (2) degradation of local mail delivery. 

23 (c) LIMITATION.—The United States Postal Service 

24 may not move forward on any decision to close, consoli25 date, downgrade, or take any other similar action with reVerDate Sep 11 2014 19:50 Jun 06, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S4254.IS S4254

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4254 IS

1 spect to a processing and distribution center in a State 

2 unless the United States Postal Service— 

3 (1) completes a review of the anticipated impact 

4 of geographical considerations, including mountain 

5 passes, on mail delivery following such action, and 

6 adequately addresses any issues raised by the review; 

7 and 

8 (2) publishes a public input summary that re9 flects favorably on the decision. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
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

LARRY BERNARD TARVER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0919 GEB KJM P

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has

filed this 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 April 8, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings

and recommendations herein which were served on plaintiff and

which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. 

Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.

Case 2:04-cv-00919-GEB -KJM Document 9 Filed 05/11/05 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

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the

magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that: 

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 8,

2005, are adopted in full; and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. 

Dated: May 10, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00919-GEB -KJM Document 9 Filed 05/11/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 61822.

#### Manca, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 262902-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked *“A”*consist of parts of photo enlargers; that said enlargers were held dutiable at 15 percent under paragraph 1551, as modified, as photographic cameras in *Manca, Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 271, C. D. 1874); and that, in accordance with said decision, parts for enlargers are properly dutiable as parts of photographic cameras under paragraph 1551, the claim of the plaintiff at 20 percent was sustained as to said items. Following *John P. Berber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. D. 1519), the protest was dismissed as to the items marked *“B,”*and the matter was remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).
SCPW-13-0000286

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent,

vs.

CHRIS SLAVICK, Petitioner.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(Cr. No. 04-1-001534)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Christopher Lee

Slavick’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was filed

on March 27, 2013, and the record, it appears that habeas corpus

relief is available to petitioner in the circuit court and

petitioner presents no special reason for invoking the supreme

court’s original jurisdiction. See Oili v. Chang, 57 Haw. 411,

412, 557 P.2d 787, 788 (1976). Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 8, 2013.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-13-0000286

08-MAY-2013

01:35 PM
Exhibit
      10.17





2007
      Management Incentive Plan (“2007 MIP”):





The
      2007
      MIP is a cash incentive plan which links awards to performance results and
      is
      designed to provide cash incentive awards (“Awards”) to five senior management
      employees (the “Participants”): W. Barry Gilbert, Jeffrey Schlarbaum, Brian
      Davis, Donald Doody, and Tina DeVey.





No
      Award
      will be paid to any Participant unless the Company has achieved a minimum net
      income of $400,000 (before taxes and net of all incentives) (“Minimum Net
      Income”).





If
      the
      Minimum Net Income has been achieved, then each Participant will be eligible
      to
      receive an Award, if any, determined on the basis of the degree of achievement
      of certain performance criteria (“Performance Goals”) applicable to that
      Participant.





Performance
      Goals based upon the following measurements have been established: On Time
      Delivery, Net Income Before Taxes, Sales, and Cash Collection Cycle. From the
      foregoing and based upon a Participant’s job responsibilities, the Committee has
      assigned a weighting factor to each Performance Goal as it applies to a
      particular Participant. The formula or matrix prescribing the extent to which
      such Participant’s Award will be earned based upon the level of achievement and
      the weighting of each Performance Goal is set forth on Attachment
      A.





If
      the
      targets for each of a Participant’s Performance Goals are achieved, an Award
      equal to a percentage (varying from 25% to 50% of the Participant’s base salary
      will be paid (the “Target Award”). The incentive percentage of a Participant is
      based upon position in the Company. Below a threshold level of performance
      (“Plan Entry”), no Awards will be made. If the targets are surpassed, Awards
      will increase depending on the percentage of the targets achieved. However,
      no
      Award to a Participant may exceed 200% of the Target Award.





With
      respect to each Participant, no Award will be payable except upon written
      certification by the Committee that the Minimum Net Income has been achieved
      and
      that the Performance Goals applicable to an individual Participant have been
      satisfied to a particular extent.





Payment
      of any Award to a Participant based upon the degree of attainment of the
      applicable Performance Goals will be made within fifteen (15) days after receipt
      by the Company of the audited financial statements for Fiscal 2007. In order
      to
      receive an Award, a Participant must be an employee of the Company on the date
      such Award is to be distributed.





The
      2007
      MIP is based upon the organic growth of the Company. If any acquisition is
      made
      by the Company in Fiscal 2007, the Committee will review the impact of such
      acquisition and determine what, if any, changes should be made to the 2007
      MIP.





1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998             MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998             SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           98000                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   378379                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                     161643                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                661505                       0
<PP&E>                                          700000                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1712961                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           855951                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                         13969                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1712961                       0
<SALES>                                         832011                 1585108
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                832011                 1585108
<CGS>                                           421397                  968560
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   421397                  968560
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                468408                  684310
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                   29991
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (57794)                 (67762)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (57794)                 (98553)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.004)                   (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-51095

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EVARISTO MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:06-CR-2043-1

Before REAVLEY, CLEMENT, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Evaristo Martinez has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Martinez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 20, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-51095 Document: 00514353642 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/20/2018
No. 16-51095

2

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-51095 Document: 00514353642 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/20/2018
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 39 (Wednesday, February 28, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 8971]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3517]



[[Page 8971]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D. 022207D]


Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public hearings.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS will hold a series of public hearings regarding the Draft 
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DPEIS) for Research on 
Steller Sea Lions and Northern Fur Seals.

DATES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific dates, times, and 
locations of public hearings for this issue.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Payne or Tammy Adams, (301)713-
2289.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 16, 2007, notice was published 
in the Federal Register (72 FR 7652) of the availability of the DPEIS 
for review and comments. Written comments on the DPEIS must be received 
by April 2, 2007. NMFS will hold three public hearings to inform 
interested parties of the alternatives analyzed and accept comments. 
Please be advised that a valid government-issued photo-identification 
will be required for entry through building security at the Silver 
Spring, MD and Seattle, WA hearings.

Public Hearings Agenda

    Public hearings will be held at the following dates, times, and 
locations:
    1. March 13, 2007, 1 to 4 pm; Silver Spring Metro Complex, Bldg. 4, 
Science Center, 1301 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD;
    2. March 15, 2007, 4 to 7 pm; Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 
Bldg. 9, 7600 Sand Point Way, Seattle, WA; and
    3. March 18, 2007, 5 to 8 pm; Hilton Hotel, 501 West 3rd Avenue, 
Anchorage, AK.
    Written comments will be accepted at these hearings as well as 
during the comment period.

Special Accommodations

    These meetings are accessible to people with disabilities. Requests 
for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be 
directed to Tyrone Stuckey or Dee Jenkins, 301-713-2289 (voice) or 301-
427-2521 (fax), at least five business days before the scheduled 
meeting date.

    Dated: February 22, 2007.
P. Michael Payne,
Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of 
Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E7-3517 Filed 2-27-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
No. 64841.

#### Manca, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/16331 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the article in question, described on the invoice as “1 Rangefinder testing device,” is a metal testing device, that it has no optical component parts, and that the device enables the observer to check, for correct position, the rangefinder coupling of a photographic lens, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained. *United States*v. *J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc.*(30 C.C.P.A. 213, C.A.D. 235), followed.
# C_2022073EN.01004202.xml

| 14.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/42

---

Order of the General Court of 29 November 2021 — Nguyen v Council

(Case T-522/16) (1)

(Civil service - Contract staff - 2014 Reform of the Staff Regulations - Reimbursement of annual travel expenses and grant of travelling time - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2022/C 73/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Huynh Duong Vi Nguyen (Woluwe Saint-Lambert, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Tavena and M. Ecker, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking, in substance, first, annulment of the decisions no longer to grant the applicant, as of 1 January 2014, travelling time and reimbursement of annual travel costs so that she may maintain a connection with her place of origin and, second, an order that the defendant pay damages in respect of the material and non-material harm that the applicant allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Ms Huynh Duong Vi Nguyen shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Huynh Duong Vi Nguyen shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

| 3. | The European Parliament shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Parliament shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-99/14 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

---
Exhibit 32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Warning Model Management, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stanley Tepper, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of the undersigneds knowledge and belief:
 
 (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
 material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
 the Company.
 
 May 24 , 2004
 
 /s/ Stanley Tepper
 Stanley Tepper, Chief Financial 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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Walter Maurice Savage,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 04-1079 MCE PAN P

vs. Order

State of California, et al.,

Respondents.

-oOoAugust 22, 2005, petitioner requested an extension of time

to oppose respondents’ motion to dismiss. Good cause appearing,

petitioner’s request is granted and time is extended until

October 15, 2005. No further extensions will be granted absent a

showing of manifest injustice. Petitioner has not shown why

access to the law library is necessary to oppose dismissal.

So ordered.

Dated: August 23, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01079-MCE -PAN Document 17 Filed 08/24/05 Page 1 of 1