alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**WrittenStatement of the Chief Executive Officer**

 

I, Scott C. Hennessy, asPresident and Chief Executive Officer of True Temper Sports, Inc. (the“Company”), state and certify that this Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for theperiod ended June 27, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the informationcontained in this Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the period ended June 27,2004, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/   Scott  C. Hennessy                               |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Scott C.  Hennessy                                                    |
| President  and Chief Executive Officer  (Principal Executive Officer) |
| August 11,  2004                                                      |

 

----
#### Ex parte Wendell Allen STEWART.

77-267.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Feb. 3, 1978.

BLOODWORTH, Justice.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and FAULKNER, AL-MON and EMBRY, JJ., concur.
# L_2005201EN.01003501.xml

| 2.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 201/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 201/35

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1267/2005

of 1 August 2005

authorising the lodging of applications for refund certificates as provided for by Article 38(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1043/2005

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3448/93 of 6 December 1993 laying down the trade arrangements applicable to certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1043/2005 of 30 June 2005 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 3448/93 as regards the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds (2), and in particular Article 38(1) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | After the allocation of certificates in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 1043/2005, amounts determined in accordance with Article 35(2) of that Regulation remain available. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

After the allocation of certificates in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 1043/2005, amounts determined in accordance with Article 35(2) of that Regulation remain available.

| (2) | In order to allow the allocation of those amounts, it is appropriate to authorise operators to lodge applications for refund certificates for goods to be exported before 1 October 2005, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In order to allow the allocation of those amounts, it is appropriate to authorise operators to lodge applications for refund certificates for goods to be exported before 1 October 2005,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In accordance with Article 38(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1043/2005, applications for refund certificates may be lodged from Monday 8 August 2005 for goods to be exported before 1 October 2005.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 2 August 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 1 August 2005.

For the Commission

Günter VERHEUGEN

Vice-President

---

(1)  
  OJ L 318, 20.12.1993, p. 18. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2580/2000 (OJ L 298, 25.11.2000, p. 5.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 172, 5.7.2005, p. 24.

2

---
255 La. 497

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Bonnie MOUSER.

No. 50404.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 26, 1970.

See also Section 36 of Article 7, La. Const.1921, and State v. Cumming, 251 La. 416, 204 So.2d 769.

S. SANFORD LEVY, Associate Justice ad hoc.

The petition of relator in the above numbered and entitled cause having been duly considered:

It is ordered that the Honorable Edward J. Stoulig, Judge of the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson, accept jurisdiction of the appeal in this matter.

It is further ordered that in the event the respondent judge fails to comply with the aforesaid order on or before March 6, 1970, that a writ of certiorari issue herein directing the said judge to transmit to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana, the record in duplicate or a certified copy of the record in duplicate in this proceeding and that the respondent judge show cause to the contrary in this Court on March 30, 1970, at 11:00 o’clock a. m.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 203 (Tuesday, October 21, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 54659]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28019]


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

POSTAL SERVICE BOARD OF GOVERNORS


Sunshine Act Meeting; Notification of Item Added to Meeting 
Agenda

DATE OF MEETING: October 6, 1997.

STATUS: Closed.

PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: 62 FR 51169, September 30, 1997.
CHANGE: At its meeting on October 6, 1997, the Board of Governors of 
the United States Postal Service voted unanimously to add an item to 
the agenda of its closed meeting held on that date: Compensation 
Issues.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Thomas J. Koerber, Secretary of 
the Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 
20260-1000. Telephone (202) 268-4800.
Thomas J. Koerber,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-28019 Filed 10-17-97; 3:22 pm]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-M
#### OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, a foreign corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, Appellant, v. Nadine E. BRUCE and Clarence N. Bruce, husband and wife, Appellees. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, a foreign corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, Appellant, v. Mary McLAY, Appellee.

Nos. 71-128, 71-129.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 9, 1971.

Gary L. Stump, of Whittaker, Pyle & Stump, Orlando, for appellant.

Thomas M. Woodruff, of Whitaker & Koepke & Associates, Orlando, for appel-lees.

PER CURIAM.

Upon examining the record-on-appeal and the arguments presented to us, we hold the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was properly before the jury. Yarbrough v. Ball U-Drive System, Inc., Fla.1950, 48 So.2d 82; Holman v. Ford Motor Company, Fla.App.1970, 239 So.2d 40; Enslein v. Hudson & Manhattan Railroad Company, 1957, 8 Misc.2d 87, 165 N.Y.S.2d 630 and Domany v. Otis Elevator Company, 6th C.A. 1966, 369 F.2d 604, cert. den. at 387 U.S. 942, 87 S.Ct. 2073, 18 L.Ed.2d 1327.

Affirmed.

WALDEN, CROSS and OWEN, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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, 2014

p0721

Order 

Clerk

July 29, 2014

148755

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 148755

COA: 316130

Alger CC: 06-001740-FC

DONALD JAMES GATISS, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 27, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
255 La. 497

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Alonzo EDWARDS.

No. 50413.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 27, 1970.

In re: Alonzo Edwards applying for writ of certiorari.

Writ refused. Upon the reservation of a proper bill of exception, defendant has an adequate remedy by appeal in the event of conviction. LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 648; see State v. Neu, 180 La. 545, 157 So.2d 105.
# L_2005005EN.01002501.xml

| 7.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 5/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 5/25

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 22/2005

of 6 January 2005

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of oats issued in Regulation (EC) No 1565/2004

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (2), and in particular Article 7 thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2004 of 3 September 2004 on a special intervention measure for cereals in Finland and Sweden for the 2004/2005 marketing year (3),

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of oats produced in Finland and Sweden for export from Finland and Sweden to all third countries, with the exception of Bulgaria, Norway, Romania and Switzerland was opened pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1565/2004. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of oats produced in Finland and Sweden for export from Finland and Sweden to all third countries, with the exception of Bulgaria, Norway, Romania and Switzerland was opened pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1565/2004.

| (2) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 31 December 2004 to 6 January 2005 in response to the invitation to tender for the refund for the export of oats issued in Regulation (EC) No 1565/2004.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 7 January 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States

Done at Brussels, 6 January 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1431/2003 (OJ L 203, 12.8.2003, p. 16).

2

(3)  
  OJ L 285, 4.9.2004, p. 3.

3

---
#### Jack STROTHER, Jr. v. Mary Knight STROTHER.

Civ. 1239.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

Feb. 22, 1978.

L. Y. Sadler, Jr. and Donald M. McLeod, Camden, for appellant.

No brief for appellee.

HOLMES, Judge.

The husband filed with the Circuit Court of Baldwin County a petition to modify the amount of child support for two minor children. The trial court did modify the decree by decreasing the required amount from $500 per month to $350 per month. We would note that the original amount of $500 per month for child support was by agreement of the parties which was incorporated into the decree of divorce.

The husband appeals, contending the trial court abused its discretion in failing to make a more substantial reduction.

This appeal is before this court on a statement of the evidence prepared pursuant to Rule 10(d), ARAP. This statement, in pertinent part, reveals that at the time of the divorce in 1975, the husband earned approximately $2,000 per month; that he now earns $550 per month, that he has remarried; that his present wife is the apartment manager of the apartment complex where they reside; that she has no *732other employment; and that their apartment is provided rent free because of the wife’s duties as apartment manager. The husband’s expenses as shown by the record are over $400 per month. The husband testified that he could pay $200 per month as child support.

The modification of a prior decree for child support in a divorce decree based on changed circumstances of the parties is a matter within the judicial discretion of the trial court and the exercise of such discretion is to be disturbed on appeal only if there is such an abuse of discretion as to make the decision plainly and palpably wrong. *White*v. *White,*Ala.Civ.App., 334 So.2d 908 (1976); 8 Ala.Dig. *Divorce*&wkey;309.

Here, in this instance, we cannot find such an abuse as to require reversal. The trial court in fact modified the decree by reducing the amount by $150 per month. The trial court could have found that the husband-father who, approximately two years before this proceeding, was able to earn $2,000 per month and now only earns $550 per month is not earning to his capacity. Furthermore, the trial court could have well concluded that to reduce the amount even greater would have not been in the interest of the two minor children. Put another way, the cost of living, which the trial court can take judicial knowledge of, has increased since the original decree.

We should not be understood by the above as indicating that the trial court’s action would have necessarily been this court’s action. However, the law does not allow this court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. *Sutton v. Sutton,*55 Ala.App. 254, 314 So.2d 707 (1975).

The case is due to be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

WRIGHT, P. J., and BRADLEY, J., concur.
EXHIBIT 23.2


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

         We have issued our report dated March 24, 2005,  except for Note 19, as
to which  the date is March 30,  2005,  and Note 13, as to which the date is May
31,  2005  accompanying  the  consolidated  financial  statements  and  schedule
included in the Annual Report of Tarrant Apparel Group and  subsidiaries on Form
10-K  for  the  year  ended   December  31,  2005.  We  hereby  consent  to  the
incorporation  by reference  of said report in the  Registration  Statements  of
Tarrant Apparel Group on Form S-8 (File No. 333-106151, effective June 16, 2003,
File No.  333-106152,  effective June 16, 2003, File No.  333-106153,  effective
June  16,  2003,  File No.  333-114377,  effective  April  9,  2004 and File No.
333-49810,  effective  November 13, 2000) and on Form S-3 (File No.  333-110090,
effective November 6, 2003, File No. 333-111092, effective December 23, 2003 and
File No. 333-122043 and File No. 333-122043, effective June 10, 2005).


/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP
-----------------------
Los Angeles, California
March 31, 2006
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 209 (Wednesday, October 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 56190]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28646]



[[Page 56190]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-5915-2]


Agency Information Collection Activities; OMB Responses

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the Office of Management and Budget's 
(OMB) responses to Agency clearance request, in compliance with the 
paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.). An agency may not 
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 
control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are 
listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandy Farmer (202) 260-2740, please 
refer to the appropriate EPA Information Collection Request (ICR) 
Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

OMB Responses to Agency Clearance Requests

OMB Approvals

    EPA ICR No. 1812.01; Public Water Systems Annual Compliance Report; 
was approved 09/30/97; OMB No. 2040-0186; expires 09/30/2000.
    EPA ICR No. 1176.05; NSPS for New Residential Wood Heaters--40 CFR 
60.530 thru 60.539(b), Subpart AAA; was approved 09/26/97; OMB No. 
2060-0161; expires 09/30/2000.
    EPA ICR No. 1672.02; Request for Information for Bioremediation 
Field Initiative Database System; was approved 05/15/97; OMB No. 2080-
0048; expires 05/31/2000.

OMB Disapprovals

    EPA ICR No. 1813.01; Information Collection Request of Proposed 
Regional Haze Rule; was disapproved by OMB 10/03/97.
    EPA ICR No. 1801.01; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants Cement Manufacturing; was disapproved by OMB 10/03/97.
    EPA ICR No. 1788.01 NESHAP for Source Category: Oil and Natural Gas 
Production; was disapproved by OMB 10/14/97.
    EPA ICR No. 1789.01; NESHAP for Source Category: Natural Gas 
Transmission and Storage; was disapproved by OMB 10/14/97.

Notice of Short Term Extensions

    EPA ICR No. 1676.01; Clean Air Act Tribal Authority; OMB No. 2060-
0306; expiration date was extended from 10/31/97 to 03/31/98.
    EPA ICR No. 1637.03; Determining Conformity of General Federal 
Actions to State Implementation Plans; OMB No. 2060-0279; expiration 
date was extended from 10/31/97 to 04/30/98.

    Dated: October 23, 1997.
Joseph Retzer,
Division Director, Regulatory Information Division.
[FR Doc. 97-28646 Filed 10-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
* 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.

CORRECTED

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 97-60604

Summary Calendar

________________________

JOHNNY K. BROWN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TOWER LOAN OF MISSISSIPPI, INC. , 

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Mississippi

(5:96-CV-73BrS)

_________________________________________________________________

March 17, 1998

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The appellant, Johnny K. Brown, appeals from an adverse

summary judgment dismissing his claim of age discrimination

brought pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of

1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-34 After a de novo review of

the summary judgment record, we affirm.

Brown was terminated from his employment with Tower Loan of

Mississippi, Inc., five weeks after he was hired. He was forty-
2

five (45) years old both at the time he was hired and at the time

he was terminated. Brown attempts to overcome the legitimate

non-discriminatory reasons advanced for his discharge with a

claim of pretext based upon a stray remark (“you just can’t teach

old dogs new tricks”) made by a supervisor who was not involved

in the decision to terminate him and after the decision to

terminate Brown had been made. That stray remark is woefully

inadequate to create an issue of fact with respect to the

appellee’s articulated non-discriminatory reasons for discharging

Brown. See Waggoner v. City of Garland, 987 F.2d 1160, 1166 (5th

Cir. 1993). For essentially this reason and as further explained

in the Memorandum Opinion and Order of the district court, dated

July 30, 1997, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3756 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3756

To establish a new pilot program that would test coverage of outpatient 
   observation services furnished outside a hospital under the Acute 
                   Hospital Care at Home initiative.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 7, 2024

Mr. Rubio (for himself, Mr. Carper, and Mrs. Blackburn) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To establish a new pilot program that would test coverage of outpatient 
   observation services furnished outside a hospital under the Acute 
                   Hospital Care at Home initiative.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``At Home Observation and Medical 
Evaluation Services Act of 2024'' or the ``At HOME Services Act of 
2024''.

SEC. 2. PILOT PROGRAM TO INCLUDE OBSERVATION SERVICES IN THE ACUTE 
              HOSPITAL CARE AT HOME INITIATIVE.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 
of this Act and subject to subsection (b), the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services in coordination with the Centers for Medicare and 
Medicaid Services shall establish a pilot program to test expanding the 
Acute Hospital Care at Home initiative described in section 1866G of 
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395cc-7) to allow a hospital to 
furnish outpatient observation services to an individual at home in 
accordance with such requirements as the Secretary shall specify.
    (b) Required Notification.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
law, the Secretary may not waive the requirements of section 
1866(a)(1)(Y) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395cc(a)(1)(Y)) 
for hospitals participating in the pilot program.
                                 <all>
```
#### John Gilbert CARTWRIGHT, as City Manager of the City of Pompano Beach, and Frederick Rodman Peterson, as Planning Technician of the City of Pompano Beach, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida ex rel Mary Sue COPELAND, and Joyce Anslery, as City Clerk of the City of Pompano Beach, Appellees.

No. 72-1187.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 29, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.