alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 182 (Friday, September 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49287-49288]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24901]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE


Notice of Meeting of the Industry Sector Advisory Committee for 
Electronics and Instrumentation (ISAC 5)

AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Industry Sector Advisory Committee for Electronics and 
Instrumentation (ISAC 5) will hold a meeting on October 15, 1997 from 
9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The meeting will be open to the public from 9:15 
a.m. to 9:45 a.m. and closed to the public from 9:00 a.m. to 9:15 a.m. 
and 9:45 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

DATES: The meeting is scheduled for October 15, 1997, unless otherwise 
notified.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Department of Commerce in 
Room 1863, located at 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC, unless otherwise notified.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Donnelly, Department of 
Commerce, 14th St. and Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230, 
(202) 482-5466 or Bill Daley, Office of the United States Trade 
Representative, 600 17th St. NW., Washington, DC 20508, (202) 395-6120.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The ISAC 5 will hold a meeting on October 
15, 1997 from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The meeting will include a review 
and discussion of current issues which influence U.S. trade policy. 
Pursuant to section 2155(f)(2) of Title 19 of the United States Code 
and Executive Order 11846 of March 27, 1975, the Office of the U.S. 
Trade Representative has determined that part of this meeting in will 
be concerned with matters the disclosure of which would seriously 
compromise the development by the United States Government of trade 
policy, priorities, negotiating objectives or bargaining positions with 
respect to the operation of any trade agreement and other matters 
arising in connection with the development, implementation and 
administration of the trade policy of the United States. During the 
discussion

[[Page 49288]]

of such matters, the meeting will be closed to the public from 9:00 
a.m. to 9:15 a.m. and 9:45 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The meeting will be open 
to the public and press from 9:15 a.m. to 9:45 a.m. when other trade 
policy issues will be discussed. Attendance during this part of the 
meeting is for observation only. Individuals who are not members of the 
committee will not be invited to comment.
Phyllis Shearer Jones,
Assistant United States Trade Representative, Intergovernmental Affairs 
and Public Liaison.
[FR Doc. 97-24901 Filed 9-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190-01-M
EXHIBIT 32.2





THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC.



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 Annual Report of The DIRECTV Group, Inc. (the Corporation) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bruce B. Churchill, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



(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 results of operations of the Corporation.



|                                                                       
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                       
|/s/    BRUCE B. CHURCHILL                                              
|Bruce B. Churchill Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer



March 17, 2004
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-2202) pertaining to the AMX Corporation 1996 Employee Stock
Purchase Plan, the AMX Corporation 1995 Director Stock Option Plan, the AMX
Corporation 1995 Stock Option Plan, and the AMX Corporation 1993 Stock Option
Plan of our report dated May 12, 1998 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of AMX Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended March 31, 1998.


                                       Ernst & Young LLP


Dallas, Texas
June 29, 1998
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,887,001
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,992,480
<ALLOWANCES>                                   538,087
<INVENTORY>                                  6,828,504
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,423,472
<PP&E>                                       7,264,548
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,378,260
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,795,317
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,121,173
<BONDS>                                      1,028,371
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,165,977
<OTHER-SE>                                     807,996
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,795,317
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            54,918,520
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               51,836,386
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,254,702
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               298,200
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             627,537
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,098,305)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (341,855)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,756,450)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,756,450)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.74)
        

</TABLE>
#### Cole *v.*Stewart et al., Appellants.

Argued December 12, 1933.

Before Trexler, P. J., Keller, Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadteeld, Parker and James, JJ.

*562
      *A. Albert Gross,*and with him *Asher Seip,*for appellants.

*G. T. Woodring,*and with him *Francis E. Walter,*for appellee.

February 1, 1934:

Opinion by

Baldrige, J.,

The claimant in this workmen’s compensation case, on October 1, 1928, while working as a carpenter, fell off the roof and sustained a fracture of the neck of the right thigh bone at a point where it fits into the pelvic socket. An agreement was entered into November 15, 1928, and compensation was paid for 215 weeks. On January 13, 1932, the defendant and insurance carrier filed a petition for the modification of the agreement, alleging that the claimant’s disability amounted only to the industrial loss of the use of his leg. The referee sustained this contention, and held that the claimant came under section 306 (c) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (77 PS §513); and modified the agreement accordingly. On appeal, the board reversed the referee’s findings, and found that the effects of the injury were not confined to the leg, but directly affected the hip joint and back, causing disability in addition to the loss of the use of the leg; and the appellants were directed to resume payments for total disability, as provided under section 306 (a). The court of common pleas, on appeal, sustained the board. We find no error in so doing.

In referring to the testimony, we find that Dr. West, called by the appellants, testified that upon his examination of the claimant, be found that there is no union of the bones; that the hip joint is completely ankylosed, which causes him to throw his leg out of *563line when he walks; that he sustained a loss of the industrial use of his leg, “injury to his right hip,” and his hack is indirectly affected. The claimant testified as to pain over his hip joint and as to his difficulty in moving about. This evidence was sufficient for the fact finding body to conclude that, as the) direct result of the accident, there was an injury not only to his leg, but also to his back and hip.

There is a striking similarity in these facts to Toth v. Pittsburgh Terminal Coal Corp., 110 Pa. Superior Ct. 163, 167 A. 438, and Clark v. Clearfield Opera House Co. et al., 275 Pa. 244, 119 A. 136. In each of those cases, there was not only a complete loss of the use of the leg, but, as here, the injuries also extended to a wider area. Those cases held that section 306 (a) was applicable; and they are controlling in the case at bar.

Order of the learned court below is affirmed.
Dismissed and Opinion Filed May 23, 2019.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-00267-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF R.N.N., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 397th Judicial District Court

Grayson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. FA-12-1337

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Myers, Molberg, and Carlyle

Opinion by Justice Myers

Appellant’s brief in this case is overdue. By postcard dated April 24, 2019, we notified

appellant that the time for filing his brief had expired. We directed appellant to file a brief and an 

extension motion within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to file a brief and an 

extension motion would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. To date, 

appellant has not filed his brief or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of 

this appeal.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), (c).

190267F.P05

/Lana Myers/

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF R.N.N., A CHILD 

No. 05-19-00267-CV 

On Appeal from the 397th Judicial District 

Court, Grayson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. FA-12-1337.

Opinion delivered by Justice Myers, 

Justices Molberg and Carlyle participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

Judgment entered this 23rd day of May 2019.
#### GLOBE PLUMBING, HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING CO. v. ROUSSEL-HART CONTRACTORS. ROUSSEL-HART CONTRACTORS v. The HOUSING AUTHORITY of the TOWN OF WHITE CASTLE, Louisiana.

No. 61771.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 27, 1978.

In re: Globe Plumbing, Heating and Air Conditioning Co., applying for certiorari or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of Iberville. 354 So.2d 1055.

Writ denied.

TATE and CALOGERO, JJ., would grant the writ.
Exhibit 10.18

LOGO

May 25, 2005

Mark Dacosta

16846 2ndAve SW

Normandy Park, WA 98166

Dear Mark,

Congratulations and welcome to the Tullys
team! Please accept this letter as confirmation of the details of our conversation regarding your employment with Tullys Coffee.

As
we discussed, your position will be Vice President, Wholesale Operations. Your benefits package includes an annualized salary of $100,000, with vacation, holiday, and sick leave according to company policy, health, life and disability insurance,
Section 125 pre-tax accounts, 401(k) retirement savings plan, and a Tullys Card with special benefits for employees only. You will also receive a monthly car allowance of $600. Tullys will reimburse your cellular phone expense
either through regular expense reports or by providing you with a company phone.

In addition to this benefits package, you are also
eligible for an individual bonus opportunity based on the performance of the Wholesale division relative to net profit goals. If the division reaches their Fiscal 2006 net profit goal, you will receive $5,000. For each additional $100,000 the
division surpasses their Fiscal 2006 net profit goal, you will also receive $5,000, to a cumulative total maximum individual bonus opportunity of $25,000.

Finally, you are eligible for an additional incentive opportunity for Fiscal 2006 consisting of a cash award and a Tullys stock option grant. As this incentive program has only recently been approved by
Tullys Board of Directors, the communication materials are not yet complete. You will receive information about your Fiscal 2006 incentive opportunity under separate cover.

We value your skills and expertise and look forward to having you begin your employment with us Tuesday, May 31, 2005.

Again, congratulations and welcome to Tullys! We look forward to your arrival!



Sincerely,TULLYS COFFEE CORPORATION/s/ John D. DreselJohn D. Dresel President and Chief Operating Officer




|                                                                                                                               
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|3100AIRPORTWAYSOUTHSEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98134  TELEPHONE (206) 233 2070  FACSIMILE (206) 233 2077  (800) 96
TULLY  WWW.TULLYS.COM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM NETSCAPE
COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE PERIOD ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          55,172
<SECURITIES>                                   129,426
<RECEIVABLES>                                  161,526
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (8,335)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               395,086
<PP&E>                                         207,180
<DEPRECIATION>                                (76,087)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 632,820
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          203,550
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                     429,045
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   632,820
<SALES>                                        383,950
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               533,851
<CGS>                                           50,232
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   81,789
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               584,329
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (3,439)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 425
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (127,284)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (11,788)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (115,496)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (115,496)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.34)


</TABLE>
#### McArthur PARRISH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-685.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 4, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
Case 1:04-cv-00276-MBC   Document 12   Filed 03/07/06   Page 1 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00276-MBC   Document 12   Filed 03/07/06   Page 2 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00276-MBC   Document 12   Filed 03/07/06   Page 3 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00276-MBC   Document 12   Filed 03/07/06   Page 4 of 4
¿Cómo funciona el Mercado de Seguros Médicos?

Abra una cuenta

Primero, usted proveerá 

cierta información básica.

Luego escoja un nombre 

de usuario, la contraseña 

y preguntas de seguridad 

para más protección. 

Solicite 

Empezando el 1 de octubre 

de 2013 usted proveerá 

información acerca de usted 

y su familia, incluyendo sus 

ingresos, el tamaño de su 

familia, y más.

Use esta lista para ayudarlo 

a buscar la información que 

necesitará.

Escoja un plan

A continuación, usted 

verá todos los planes 

y programas para los 

que es elegible, y podrá 

compararlos.

También averiguará si puede 

reducir su prima mensual y 

en los gastos de su bolsillo.

Inscríbase

¡Escoja un plan que se 

ajuste a sus necesidades e 

inscríbase!

La cobertura empieza tan 

pronto como el 1 de enero 

de 2014.

HealthCare.gov

1-800-318-2596

ENE

HOLA

Mi nombre es

CMS Producto No. 11671-S

Junio 2013
#### Jackson A. CARGILL, Appellant, v. ALOMA NATIONAL BANK OF WINTER PARK, a national banking association, Appellee.

No. 69-381.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Aug. 25, 1969.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Anthony ANAGNOSTOU, Appellant, v. Lula Suggs ANAGNOSTOU, Appellee.

No. 69-722.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 4, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
#### STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Donald OSTERGARD et al., Respondents. STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Carlos GUTIERREZ et al., Respondents.

Nos. 51521, 51534.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 8, 1978.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Linda Collins Hertz and Arthur Joel Berger, Asst. Attys. Gen., Miami, for petitioner.

Walter E. Gwinn, Miami, J. Victor Afri-cano, Live Oak, Yale T. Freeman of Hirsch-horn & Freeman, Miami, Geoffrey C. Fleck of Kogen & Kogan, Miami, and W. Stephen Arnovitz of the Law Offices of Burns & Arnovitz, Miami Beach, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The writs of certiorari were granted to review the decisions of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, in *State*v. *Gutierrez,*344 So.2d 943 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), and *State v. Ostergard,*343 So.2d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), because of apparent conflict with *State*v. *Barnett,*339 So.2d 1159 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). We have recently disapproved the decision of the District Court of Appeal in *Barnett*and concurred with the decision and rationale of the District Court in *Ostergard. McNamara v. State,*357 So.2d 410 (Fla.1978). Having dispelled the conflict, we discharge the writs heretofore issued.

It is so ordered.

OVERTON, C. J., and BOYD, ENGLAND and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.

ADKINS, J., concurs specially with an opinion, with which ENGLAND, J., concurs.

ADKINS, Justice,

concurring specially:

In my opinion the decisions of the district courts of appeal were erroneous, however, the majority of the court concurred in *McNamara v. State,*357 So.2d 410 (Fla.1978) filed March 31, 1978, and took a contrary view.

The presiding judge of the statewide grand jury controls the exercise of its jurisdiction, governed by the statute, as well as the petition and empaneling order. The statewide grand jury is an arm of the presiding court.

The trial court is a separate and distinct court, the jurisdiction of which is determined by the nature of the crime charged (subject matter jurisdiction) and proper venue (territorial jurisdiction). The trial court does not have jurisdiction to make inquiry into the subject matter jurisdiction of the statewide grand jury.

We, in effect, have made “multi-county activity” a necessary element to be alleged and proved beyond a reasonable doubt in every criminal offense charged by a statewide grand jury indictment.

This step, giving a defendant additional technical objections (unrelated to the basic rights safeguarded by the Constitution) is the case law of Florida, so the disposition of these cases is in accordance with the majority view. In this respect I concur.

ENGLAND, J., concurs.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 Annual Report of TC Global, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 28,
2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 28, 2010 (the Report), I, Carl W. Pennington, Sr., President (principal executive officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | (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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                       
|---------------------------------------
|                                       
|/S/    CARL W. PENNINGTON,
SR.         
|Carl W. Pennington, Sr.                
|President (principal executive officer)
|June 28, 2010
EXHIBIT 21.1

TARRANT APPAREL GROUP

Subsidiaries



|                                   |  |                            
|---------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Name                               |  | Jurisdiction ofOrganization
|Private Brands, Inc.               |  | California                 
|                                   | 
|Fashion Resource (TCL), Inc.       |  | California                 
|                                   | 
|Tag Mex, Inc.                      |  | California                 
|                                   | 
|Rocky Apparel, LLC                 |  | Delaware                   
|                                   | 
|Tag Mex, LLC                       |  | California                 
|                                   | 
|PBG7, LLC                          |  | California                 
|                                   | 
|Jane Doe International, LLC        |  | Delaware                   
|                                   | 
|Tarrant Company Limited            |  | Hong Kong                  
|                                   | 
|Marble Limited                     |  | Hong Kong                  
|                                   | 
|Trade Link Holdings Limited        |  | Hong Kong                  
|                                   | 
|Jane Doe Hong Kong Ltd.            |  | Hong Kong                  
|                                   | 
|Tarrant Company (HK) Limited       |  | Hong Kong                  
|                                   | 
|Tarrant Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. |  | Mexico
F OR P UBLICATION



### UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A ME R I C A , Plaintiff-Appellee , v. J A S O N L E E ,

Defendant-Appellant. No. 13-10517 D.C. No. 3:09-cr-00193-CRB -1
ORDER
F iled May

27, 2016 B efore: Carlos T. B ea, Sandra S. I kuta, and Andrew D. Hurwitz , Circuit J udg es.

ORDER T he opinion filed on May 6, 2016, available a t E C F No. 51 and at 2016 W L2638364, is hereby amended: On pag e 11, the p h rase <, abrogated on other grounds by Moncrieffe v. Holder , 133 S. Ct. 1678 (2013)> is removed.