alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
         This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
registrant's  consolidated  financial  statements  for the twelve  months  ended
September  27,  1998 and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000906473
<NAME>                        Starcraft Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 SEP-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-27-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         1,369
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  7,186
<ALLOWANCES>                                   40
<INVENTORY>                                    10,857
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               19,773
<PP&E>                                         12,151
<DEPRECIATION>                                 4,305
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 29,015
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          14,371
<BONDS>                                        10,777
<COMMON>                                       14,016
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (10,480)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   29,015
<SALES>                                        53,092
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               53,092
<CGS>                                          49,590
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  49,590
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               9,548
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             892
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,838)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (79)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,759)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,759)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (1.63)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.63)
        


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 22, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 54892]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27893]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice No. 2622]


Advisory Committee on International Communications and 
Information Policy; Meeting Notice

    The Department of State is holding the next meeting of its Advisory 
Committee on International Communications and Information Policy. The 
Committee provides a formal channel for regular consultation and 
coordination on major economic, social and legal issues and problems in 
international communications and information policy, especially as 
these issues and problems involve users of information and 
communication services, providers of such services, technology research 
and development, foreign industrial and regulatory policy, the 
activities of international organizations with regard to communications 
and information, and developing country interests.
    The guest speaker at the meeting will be Ms. Nancy Wong, 
Commissioner of the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure 
Protection (PCCIP). She will speak on the telecommunications aspects of 
the PCCIP's mission.
    In addition, the purpose of this meeting will be to hear reports 
from the working groups on various issues that chart the future 
direction and work plan of the committee. The members will look at the 
substantive issues on which the committee should focus, as well as 
specific countries and regions of interest to the committee.
    This meeting will be held on Thursday, November 13, 1997, from 9:30 
a.m.-12:30 p.m. in Room 1105 of the Main Building of the U.S. 
Department of State, located at 2201 ``C'' Street, N.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20520. Members of the public may attend these meetings up to the 
seating capacity of the room. While the meeting is open to the public, 
admittance to the State Department Building is only by means of a pre-
arranged clearance list. In order to be placed on the pre-clearance 
list, please provide your name, title, company, social security number, 
date of birth, and citizenship to Shirlett Brewer at (202) 647-8345 or 
by fax at (202) 647-0158. All attendees must use the ``C'' Street 
entrance. One of the following valid ID's will be required for 
admittance: any U.S. driver's license with photo, a passport, or a U.S. 
Government agency ID.
    For further information, contact Timothy C. Finton, Executive 
Secretary of the Committee, at (202) 647-5385.

    Dated: October 10, 1997.
Timothy C. Finton,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-27893 Filed 10-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-45-M
×

×

                    Step 1                    Identify                    Stakeholders                

                    Step 2                    Use                    Safety Data                

                    Step 3                    Choose Proven                    Solutions                

                    Step 4                    Implement                    Solutions                

                    Finish Line                

A plan by itself does not save lives. It must be implemented. Use this page for ideas on how to get the ideas in your plan off the paper and into the real world to help real people.

----

Local Agency Insights: ImplementationSafety Plan Tips with Rosemarie AndersonEducation Videos

Content will open in a new window

## Tools and Resources

Guides
              - Implementing a LRSP

Training
              - Tutorial - Implement Solutions
              - Systemic Approach Training – Part 3

Webinars
              - LRSP Part #1: LRSP Implementation
              - LRSP Part #2: A Roadmap to Getting Home Safely
              - Implementing a Local Road Safety Plan
              - Local Safety Funding Options
Exhibit 99.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350 TO CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Varian, Inc. for the period ended December 27, 2002, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date of this certification (the Report), the
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 1350 to Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Varian, Inc.



|Dated:                                                                        |  | February 7, 2003
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------
|                                                                             
|/s/    ALLEN J.
LAUER                                                        
|Allen J. Lauer Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Varian, Inc.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ROBERT WILLIAM RUGGLES,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 492 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 4th day of February, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
<PAGE>   1




                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.3



                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT

To the Board of Directors and Stockholder
RFS, Inc. and Subsidiary:

We have audited the accompanying consolidated statements of operations,
stockholder's equity and cash flows of RFS, Inc. and subsidiary (a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Hilton Hotel Corporation) (the Company) for the year ended
December 31, 1997. These financial statements are the responsibility of the
Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
consolidated financial statements based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable
assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audit provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present
fairly, in all material respects, the results of operations and cash flows of
RFS, Inc. and subsidiary for the year ended December 31, 1997, in conformity
with generally accepted accounting principles.




                                                    KPMG LLP




Memphis, Tennessee
January 23, 1998
CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND


CHIEF
      FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Snap2
      Corporation, for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, I certify, pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:





(1)
      the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Snap2 Corporation for the quarter ended
      March
      31, 2005 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
      ended March 31, 2005, fairly presents in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of Snap2 Corporation.





By: /s/   
       Kevin D.
      Johnson




Name: Kevin
      D.
      Johnson


Title:                           
      Pri ncipal
      Executive
      Officer, Principal
      Financial Officer and Director




Date: December
      27, 2005
#### Gus DUNCOMB, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. Maurice HOWARD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 69-1085, 70-172.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 23, 1970.

Alan S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender, Hughlan Long, Public Defender, and Sheldon Dubler, Special Asst. Public Defender, for appellants.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and David E. Stone, and Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Asst. At-tys. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ-

PER CURIAM.

The appellants and another were charged by information with the crime of robbery. Appellants were found guilty by a jury and *87were so adjudged by the court. They filed separate appeals. We permitted joint use of the record, and the appeals were argued together.

Appellant Duncomb challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, and contends the trial court erred by limiting certain attempted cross-examination. Appellant Howard raises the latter contention, and further argues that conflict in the testimony of two state witnesses with relation to a matter operated to cancel out the testimony of each thereto; and that the testimony of state witnesses on certain material elements of proof was unworthy of belief.

On consideration thereof in the light of the record and briefs we find such contentions of the appellants to be without merit. The contention of improperly curtailed cross-examination grew out of the circumstance that three persons presented as witnesses by the state at trial had been interviewed in the presence of each other by the state attorney prior to trial. After having brought' out that fact on cross-examination, the further questioning which it is claimed the court improperly rejected was in pursuit of a theory that such action by the state attorney was improper. The trial court committed no error there. The only value or materiality to the defendants of disclosing that the said state witnesses were interviewed in the presence of each other prior to trial, was that the credibility of those witnesses could be considered by the jury to have been lessened through the possibility that one' may have been influenced (beyond his personal observation or recollection) by information supplied by another, during such joint interrogation. However, the cross-examination which was presented relating thereto sufficiently placed the jury in a position to consider that circumstance in determining the credibility of the witnesses. As to the question of whether testimony of witnesses was unworthy of belief, that was a matter for the jury to determine. Our review of the evidence leaves us unpersuaded that there was not competent substantial evidence presented, sufficient to support the conviction and judgment.

The judgments in the two above styled appeals are affirmed.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 29, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135952 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 135952 

 COA: 280852 

Monroe CC: 04-033590-FC 

RENODDA DARRELL HICKS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 24, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s0721 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

July 29, 2008 

 Clerk
No. 00-152.

#### Lujan, Labor Commissioner of California, et al. *v. G & G*Fire Sprinklers, Inc.

C. A. 9th Cir. [Certio-rari granted *sub nom. Bradshaw*v. *G & G Fire Sprinklers, Inc., ante,*p. 924.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate- in oral argument as *amicus curiae*and for divided argument granted.
Item 77C
DWS
Strategic
Municipal
Income Trust

Registrant
incorporates by
reference to its
Proxy Statement
filed on April 7,
2008 (SEC
Accession No.
0000950137-08-
005148).
The Annual
Meeting of
Shareholders of
DWS Strategic
Municipal
Income Trust
(the "Fund") was
held on May 20,
2008 at the
offices of
Deutsche Asset
Management,
345 Park
Avenue, New
York, NY 10154.
The following
matter was voted
upon by the
shareholders of
said Fund (the
resulting votes
are presented
below):
1.	To elect
thirteen
Trustees to
the Board of
the Fund.


Number of Votes:
Trustees
For
Withheld
John W. Ballantine
9,385,170
508,504
Henry P. Becton, Jr.
9,403,470
490,204
Dawn-Marie Driscoll
9,399,958
493,716
Keith R. Fox
9,401,395
491,739
Paul K. Freeman
9,410,471
483,203
Kenneth C. Froewiss
9,410,021
486,653
Richard J. Herring
9,406,970
486,704
William McClayton
9,378,733
514,941
Rebecca W. Rimel
9,400,766
492,908
William N. Searcy, Jr.
9,411,858
481,816
Jean Gleason Stromberg
9,400,070
493,604
Robert H. Wadsworth*
45
0
Axel Schwarzer*
45
0

*	Elected by
preferred
shareholders
only.
Until recently,
substantially all
DWS open-end
funds and most
DWS closed-end
funds were
overseen by one
of two boards of
directors or
trustees (the
"Boards"). In
2007, each
Board, including
the Board that
has historically
overseen the
Fund (the
"Chicago
Board"),
determined that
the formation of
a single
consolidated
Board
overseeing all
DWS funds (the
"Consolidated
Board") would
be in the best
interests of the
funds and their
shareholders.
Accordingly,
each Board
approved a plan
to consolidate
the Chicago
Board with the
other primary
DWS fund board
(the "New York
Board"). (The
geographic
references in the
preceding
sentences merely
indicate where
each Board
historically held
most of its
meetings.)
Effective May
20, 2008, with
the election of
the above-
named Trustees,
the Fund is
governed by the
Consolidated
Board. The
Consolidated
Board consists of
five members
from the Fund's
original Chicago
Board (John W.
Ballantine, Paul
K. Freeman,
William
McClayton, Axel
Schwarzer, and
Robert H.
Wadsworth) and
eight members
from the New
York Board
(Henry P.
Becton, Jr.,
Dawn-Marie
Driscoll, Keith
R. Fox, Kenneth
C. Froewiss,
Richard J.
Herring, Rebecca
W. Rimel,
William N.
Searcy, Jr., and
Jean Gleason
Stromberg).
Prior to
consolidation,
four members of
the Fund's
original Board
(Donald L.
Dunaway, James
R. Edgar, Robert
B. Hoffman, and
Shirley D.
Peterson) either
resigned or did
not stand for
reelection.
No. 9620.

#### Eberling et al. *v.*Cole.

(Decided October 30, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga County.

*Mr. O. W. Broadwell; Mr. L. Z. Tanney*and *Mr. B. J. Satvyer,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Mr. Walter C. Ong,*for defendant in error.

Judgment reversed and original petition dismissed. Grounds stated in journal entry.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of said circuit court be and the same hereby is reversed for the reason that said judgment is contrary to law, because (1) the defendant in error, A. J. Cole, at the time of the making of the contract with J. B. Eberling for the transfer and exchange of the lots described in the petition, had no title or interest in said lots except as beneficiary under a naked and void trust. (2) The deeds tendered to J. B. Eberling because of their defective execution were insufficient to convey to him a merchantable title to the premises therein described. (3) Because upon the undisputed facts the claim of the defendant in error is shown to be without equity or merit. This court proceeding to render the judgment the circuit court should have rendered, it is considered and adjudged by the court, that the defendant in error, A. J. Cole, is not entitled to the relief prayed for in his petition, and said petition is therefore dismissed.

Shauck, C. J., Price, Crew, Summers and Spear, JJ., concur.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** Honorable Robin J. Cauthron, District Judge, UnitedStates District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, sitting by de signation. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### MAR 14 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
DAVID H. JOHNS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v. STEPHEN W. KAISER, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,

Respondents-Appellees. No. 96-7031 (D.C. No. CV-90-23-S) (E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY and KELLY, Circuit Judges, and CAUTHR ON, ** District Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Petitioner appeals the district court’s denial of h is Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion seeking relief from that court’s 1990 judgme nt denying him federal habeas relief, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, from his Oklahoma convict ions for felony murder and conspiracy to commit armed robbery. This court dis missed the appeal from the 1990 denial of habeas relief because petitioner fai led to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right. Petition er may not use Rule 60(b) to circumvent rules against abuse of the writ. Petiti oner fails to allege or prove any circumstances that would justify the filing of a su ccessive writ or that would require reconsideration of his original grounds forrelief. Because we review the district court’s denial of Rule 60(b)(6) relief foran abuse of discretion, Metz v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. , 39 F.3d 1482, 1491 (10th Cir. 1994), we affirm. Petitioner contends that intervening changes in the law, retroactively applicable to his case, require reconsideration of his § 2254 claims. Aside from the fact that between his first and second petition s, there have been no intervening changes in the law, even if there have been, ordina rily new constitutional rules of criminal procedure will not be applied on collatera l review. See generallyTeague v. Lane , 489 U.S. 288, 305-10 (1989). Petitioner is not entitled to Rule 60(b)(6) relief on his claims both because relief based upon post-judgment changes in the law is ordinarily not available-3-

under Rule 60(b)(6), see Johnston v. Cigna Corp. , 14 F.3d 486, 497 (10th Cir. 1993), and because petitioner’s purported new autho rity is not relevant. The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the Eastern District of Oklahoma is, therefore, AFFIRMED. The mandate shal l issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge