alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SUPPLEMENT TO THE CURRENTLY EFFECTIVE PROSPECTUSES:

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

                             DWS International Fund
                      DWS International Select Equity Fund

The following information replaces the portfolio management team in the
"Portfolio management" section in each of the fund's prospectuses:

The following person handles the day-to-day management of each of the
above-listed funds.

  Joseph Axtell, CFA
  Managing Director of Deutsche Asset Management and Lead Portfolio
  Manager of the fund.
    o Joined Deutsche Asset Management in 2001 and the fund in 2008.
    o Senior analyst at Merrill Lynch Investment Managers for the
      international equity portion of a global balanced portfolio
      (1996-2001).
    o Director, International Research at PCM International
      (1989-1996).
    o Associate manager, structured debt and equity group at
      Prudential Capital Corporation (1988-1989).
    o Analyst at Prudential-Bache Capital Funding in London
      (1987-1988).
    o Equity analyst in the healthcare sector at Prudential Equity
      Management Associates (1985-1987).
    o B.S., Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota.

The following individual has been named consultant to the funds' advisor,
Deutsche Investment Management Americas Inc. (the "Advisor").

  Michael Sieghart, CFA
  Managing Director of DWS Investment GmbH: Frankfurt and
  consultant to the Advisor.
    o Joined DWS Investment GmbH: Frankfurt in 1997.
    o Senior fund manager of global and European equities: Frankfurt.
    o Master's degree in finance and economics from the University
      of Economics and Business Administration, Vienna.











               Please Retain This Supplement for Future Reference

                                                          [DWS INVESTMENTS LOGO]
                                                             Deutsche Bank Group

August 19, 2008
DMF-3675
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

TRAVEL GROUP, INC., D/B/A REPUBLIC AIR TRAVEL 

AND SCOT SPENCER 

AIRLIFT GROUP, INC. 

AND RICHARD BERNARD 

Unauthorized Air Transportation, 

Unfair and Deceptive Practices and Unfair Methods of 

Competition, and Violations of Public Charter Rules 

EXPRESS ONE INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

Unfair and Deceptive Practices and Unfair Methods of 

Competition, and Violations of Public Charter Rules 

Enforcement Proceeding 

STATUS REPORT 

:; -·-· 

DOT -OST -1995-272 

formerly Docket 49233 

The Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and 

Proceedings ("Enforcement Office"), pursuant to Your Honor's March 22, 2006, Order 

staying this proceeding, files this report detailing the current status of this proceeding and 

settlement negotiations. 

The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents 

and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004-

17486. 
2 

There have been no further settlement discussions. 

Date: March 31, 2015 

Respectfully submitted, 

Blane Workie 

Assistant General Counsel for 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

Vinh Q. Nguyen 

Senior Trial Attorney 

United States Department of Transportation 

Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Room 96-429 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

TEL: 202-366-9342 

FAX: 202-366-7152 
3 

Docket No. DOT-OST-1995-272 

I hereby certify that on this 31st day ofMarch, 2015, a true and correct copy ofthe 

foregoing Status Report was served in the following manner to the.following: 

Original 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

West Building Ground Floor 

Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

By First Class Mail 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

TEL: (202) 366-2142 

FAX: (202) 366-7536 

By First Class Mail 

Scot Spencer 

SBD Aircraft Services 

25 5 S Leland Norton Way 

Sam Bernardino, CA 92408 

Scot Spencer 

22604 Esplanada Circle 

Boca Raton, Florida 33433
Order entered March 15, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-11-01299-CR

EDDRIC M. WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F10-59036-U

ORDER

Before the Court is Eddric M. Williams’s March 8, 2013 Motion Requesting Statement of 

the Facts and Clerks Record. We DENY the motion.

/s/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Cindisue Mining
Corp. (the "Company") for the year ended January 31, 2011, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Donovan L.
Cooper, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-OxLey Act of
2002, that:

     (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.


Date: July 20, 2011                      By: /s/ Donovan L. Cooper
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Donovan L. Cooper
                                             Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:petition for exemption (see attachment)
#### Gerald BALAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-290.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 31, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-QSB
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>          0000021828
<NAME>         COLONIAL COMMERCIAL CORP.


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-START>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                         SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                1,520,126
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                        12,540,551
<ALLOWANCES>                            923,427
<INVENTORY>                           7,953,053
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     22,120,618
<PP&E>                                1,540,931
<DEPRECIATION>                          344,593
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       27,595,310
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                27,737,690
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                              76,784
<COMMON>                                 76,018
<OTHER-SE>                           11,399,307
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         27,595,310
<SALES>                              27,057,905
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     27,057,905
<CGS>                                19,406,079
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        19,406,079
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        180,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      289,087
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       1,227,127
<INCOME-TAX>                            482,107
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     745,020
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                            745,020
<EPS-BASIC>                               .50
<EPS-DILUTED>                               .24



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63129-63132]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30995]



[[Page 63129]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary
[Transmittal No. 98-18]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Assistance Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. J. Hurd, DSAA/COMPT/RM, (703) 604-
6575.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittal 98-18, with attached transmittal and 
policy justification pages.

    Dated: November 20, 1997.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

BILLING CODE 5000-04-M

[[Page 63130]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26NO97.039



[[Page 63131]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26NO97.040



[[Page 63132]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26NO97.041



[FR Doc. 97-30995 Filed 11-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-C
Exhibit 4.3


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We have issued our
report dated January 24, 2018, with respect to the financial statement of Smart Trust 363 contained in Amendment No. 1 to the Registration
Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-221852) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


January 24, 2018
117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1799 

AN ACT 

To amend the Small Business Act and the CARES Act 

to extend the covered period for the paycheck protection 

program, 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, 
2 

•HR 1799 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘PPP Extension Act 

3 of 2021’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF COVERED PERIOD FOR PAYCHECK 

5 PROTECTION PROGRAM. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 7(a)(36)(A)(iii) of the 

7 Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(36)(A)(iii)) is 

8 amended by striking ‘‘March 31, 2021’’ and inserting 

9 ‘‘June 30, 2021’’. 

10 (b) FUNDING.—Section 1102(b)(1) of the CARES 

11 Act (Public Law 116–136), as amended by section 323 

12 of the Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small Businesses, Non13 profits, and Venues Act (Public Law 116–260), is amend14 ed by striking ‘‘March 31, 2021’’ and inserting ‘‘June 30, 

15 2021’’. 

16 (c) RESTRICTION.—From June 1, 2021, through 

17 June 30, 2021, the Administrator of the Small Business 

18 Administration shall not accept new lender applications 

19 for loans under paragraph (36) or (37) of section 7(a) 

20 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)) and shall 

21 only process such lender applications that have been sub22 mitted to the Administrator before June 1, 2021. 

23 SEC. 3. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS. 

24 (a) IN GENERAL.—The budgetary effects of this Act 

25 shall not be entered on either PAYGO scorecard main-
3 

•HR 1799 EH

1 tained pursuant to section 4(d) of the Statutory Pay-As2 You-Go Act of 2010 (2 U.S.C. 933(d)). 

3 (b) SENATE PAYGO SCORECARDS.—The budgetary 

4 effects of this Act shall not be entered on any PAYGO 

5 scorecard maintained for purposes of section 4106 of H. 

6 Con. Res. 71 (115th Congress). 

Passed the House of Representatives March 16, 

2021. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1799 

AN ACT 

To amend the Small Business Act and the CARES 

protection program, and for other purposes. Act to extend the covered period for the paycheck
# L_2006011EN.01003601.xml

| 17.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 11/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 11/36

---

COMMISSION DECISION

of 16 January 2006

amending Decision 2000/690/EC setting up an Enterprise Policy Group, in order to extend its period of validity

(2006/18/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Whereas:

| (1) | In accordance with Article 6 of Commission Decision 2000/690/EC (1), it appears appropriate that the work of the expert group denominated ‘Enterprise Policy Group’ should continue unhindered in 2006 in the same format as established by that Decision. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

In accordance with Article 6 of Commission Decision 2000/690/EC (1), it appears appropriate that the work of the expert group denominated ‘Enterprise Policy Group’ should continue unhindered in 2006 in the same format as established by that Decision.

| (2) | Decision 2000/690/EC should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Decision 2000/690/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

In Article 6 of Decision 2000/690/EC, the second sentence is replaced by the following: ‘It shall apply until 31 December 2006’.

Done at Brussels, 16 January 2006.

For the Commission

Günter VERHEUGEN

Vice-President

---

(1)  
  OJ L 285, 10.11.2000, p. 24. Decision as amended by Decision 2003/247/EC (OJ L 93, 10.4.2003, p. 27).

1

---
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 20-0323

Filed February 16, 2022

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

DAVID M. BOGGS,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cass County, Jeffrey L. Larson, 

Judge.

David Boggs appeals an order denying his motion to extinguish his 

restitution obligation. AFFIRMED.

Anne M. Rohling of Rohling Law, PLLC, Council Bluffs, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Darrel Mullins, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., May, J., and Vogel, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 

(2022).
2

MAY, Judge.

David Boggs appeals an order denying his motion to extinguish his 

restitution obligation. His claim in this appeal is identical to the claim he raised in 

a prior appeal, Boggs v. State, No. 20-0311, 2021 WL 4592776, at *1 (Iowa Ct. 

App. Oct. 6, 2021), in which we affirmed the district court.

1

 We see no reason to 

treat this appeal differently. So we affirm without further opinion. See Iowa Ct. 

R. 21.26(1)(d)(e).

AFFIRMED.

 

1 The argument section of Boggs’s brief in his current appeal is identical to that in 

his brief for Boggs, 2021 WL 4592776, at *1.
Exhibit 21.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

As
of July 2, 2010, the following entities are subsidiaries of DynaVox Inc.:

Name

Jurisdiction of Incorporation
or OrganizationDynaVox Systems Holdings LLC

DelawareDynaVox Intermediate LLC

DelawareDynaVox Systems LLC

DelawareDynaVox Services Inc.

DelawareBlink-Twice LLC

DelawareMayer-Johnson LLC

DelawareDynaVox International Holdings Inc.

DelawareDynaVox Systems Ltd.

United KingdomDynaVox Canada Inc.

CanadaDynaVox GmbH

GermanyEye Response Technologies, Inc.

Virginia


---



QuickLinks
**Exhibit 32.1**

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Computer Horizons Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the “Periodic Report’’), I, DennisConroy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section1350), that to his knowledge:

1.                  thePeriodic Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(15 U.S.C. Section 78m or 78o(d)); and

2.                  theinformation contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date:  | August 9, 2006 |   | /s/  Dennis Conroy |
|--------|----------------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |           |   | DENNIS CONROY           |
|   |           |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Computer Horizons Corp. and will be retainedby Computer Horizons Corp. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished solelypursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of thisPeriod Report or as a separate disclosure document.

----
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 23, 2013

NO. 03-13-00039-CR

Pedro Javier Quintero, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 421ST DISTRICT COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, ROSE AND GOODWIN

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE ROSE

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being 

considered, it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the judgment of conviction. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is in all things affirmed; and 

it appearing that the appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, that no adjudication as to costs 

is made, and that this decision be certified below for observance.
Memorandum of Understanding Regarding the Agreement between the Government of the 

United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Colombia to Improve 

International Tax Compliance and to Implement the Automatic Exchange of Information 

with respect to FATCA 

At the signing today of the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and 

the Government of the Republic of Colombia to Improve International Tax Compliance and to 

Implement the Automatic Exchange of Information with respect to FATCA (hereafter referred to as 

"the Agreement"), representatives of the Government of the United States of America and the 

Government of the Republic of Colombia wish to confirm their understanding of the following: 

It is understood that, in the case of securities registered in a Colombian Central Securities Depository 

that arc held by or through one or more other Financial Institutions, the relevant Financial Accounts 

are to be treated as held by such other Financial Institutions, and such other Financial Institutions are 

to be responsible for any reporting required with respect to such Financial Accounts. Nonetheless, in 

accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the Agreement the Colombian Central Securities 

Depository may report on behalf of such other Financial Institutions. 

Signed at Bogota D.C., in dupl icate, in the English and Spanish languages, this :26 day 

of ma (\== ' 20 15. 

For the Government of the United States 

of America: 

Ambassador of the United States to 

Colombia 

For the Government of 

the Republic of Colombia: 

Mauricio Cardenas Santamaria 

Minister of Finance and Public Credit
#### Joseph G. KONDRACKI and Rosemary Kondracki, Appellants, v. Jeff BOWEN et al., Appellees.

No. P-282.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 31, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 6, 1972.

Charles R. Timmel, of Timmel, Handley & Campbell, Fort Walton Beach, for appellants.

Ferrin C. Campbell, of Campbell & Rice, Crestview, and Robert E. Lee, of Lee & Selby, Fort Walton Beach, for appellees.

*59SPECTOR, Chief Judge.

Appellants seek reversal of an adverse judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict in an automobile negligence action. Appellant Rosemary Kondracki, hit four year old Jeff Bowen with her automobile as she was backing out of her driveway to take her daughter to school. Prior to getting into her car, Mrs. Kondracki and Jeff had carried on a casual conversation and Mrs. Kondracki thought Jeff was walking back to his house in the opposite direction from the car.

Appellants contend that there was not sufficient evidence of negligence to allow the case to go to the jury. We do not agree.

In Coast Cities Coaches v. Donat, 106 So.2d 593 (Fla.App.1958), a bus driver in an area where children were known to congregate hit a small child. The driver saw this particular child following the bus, but could not see her in front of the bus and did not know she was hit until hailed by other children. The court held that the question of negligence. was one for the jury-

The court in *Donat*quoted extensively from Miami Paper *Co.*v. Johnston, Fla., 58 So.2d 869. In *Johnston*a delivery truck in a trailer park where numerous children lived, ran over a child as he started forward. The Supreme Court in that case held that the question of negligence was properly submitted to the jury and whether or not the driver was negligent in not looking in front of the truck before he started was a jury question. Justice Terrell in *Johnston*also stated:

> “It is a matter of common knowledge that small children are erratic and unpredictable, that they are liable to take off at any time and in any direction with no concern whatever for their own safety. The drivers of motor vehicles are charged with knowledge of their behavior and are expected to govern themselves accordingly when parking or driving about school grounds, recreation parks, residential communities, trailer parks and other places inhabited by or frequented by children”.

In the instant case, appellant was parked in a residential area where children lived and was backing out of her driveway at a time of day when children would likely be about the neighborhood on their way to school. Appellant also knew that this particular child was in the vicinity. Therefore, the question of negligence was properly submitted to the jury and their finding of negligence on the part of appellee will not be disturbed where there is some basis in fact and law.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ„ concur.