alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 244 (Friday, December 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66717-66718]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33131]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission to OMB for Review; Comment Request

December 12, 1997.
    The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, room 
2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

OMB Number: 1545-0390.
Form Number: IRS Form 5306.
Type of Review: Extension.
Title: Application for Approval of Prototype or Employer Sponsored 
Individual Retirement Account.
Description: This application is used by employers who want to 
establish an individual retirement account trust to be used by their 
employees. The application is also used by persons who want to 
establish approved prototype individual retirement accounts or 
annuities. The data collected is used to determine if plans may be 
approved.
Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

[[Page 66718]]

Estimated Number of Respondents/Recordkeepers: 600.
Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent/Recordkeeper:

                                                                        
                                                                        
Recordkeeping.......................  11 hr., 58 min.                   
Learning about the law or the form..  24 min.                           
Preparing and sending the form to     37 min.                           
 the IRS.                                                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frequency of Response: On occasion.
Estimated Total Reporting/Recordkeeping Burden: 7,782 hours.
Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear (202) 622-3869, Internal Revenue 
Service, Room 5571, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20224.
OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt (202) 395-7860, Office of Management 
and Budget, room 10226, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 
20503.
Lois K. Holland,
Departmental Reports, Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-33131 Filed 12-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1997
<CASH>                                          15,154
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  281,595
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,787
<INVENTORY>                                    350,491
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               732,777
<PP&E>                                         471,437
<DEPRECIATION>                                 409,766
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,572,781
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          359,866
<BONDS>                                        924,549
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,733
<OTHER-SE>                                    (35,621)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,572,781
<SALES>                                      1,423,091
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,423,091
<CGS>                                          904,636
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,236,514
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (27,129)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,400
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              79,175
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                134,531
<INCOME-TAX>                                    51,330
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             83,201
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (3,109)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    80,092
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.05
        

</TABLE>
#### Aine Glavey, Appellant, v Stephen Latzman et al., Respondents.

[735 NYS2d 770]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered October 13, 2000, which denied plaintiff’s motion to reject the Special Referee’s report recommending, after a traverse hearing, dismissal of the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint was properly dismissed as against both defendants for failure to show that either was properly served pursuant to CPLR 308 (2). Concur — Williams, J.P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.
of a witness while she was testifying at trial by other witnesses who would 

have been excluded. Appellant has failed to demonstrate prejudice. 

Appellant failed to satisfy his burden of proof at the evidentiary hearing 

when he presented no evidence that the testifying witness was in fact 

intimidated into changing her testimony, what her testimony would have 

been had she not been intimidated, or how it would have affected the 

outcome at trial. We therefore conclude that the district court did not err 

in denying this claim. 

Second, appellant argues that counsel was ineffective for 

failing to object to the prosecutor's misstatement of law in closing 

argument concerning the definitions of willfulness, premeditation, and 

deliberation. Appellant has failed to demonstrate deficiency or prejudice. 

Despite carrying the burden of proof, appellant failed to question either 

trial counsel at his evidentiary hearing about their decision not to object to 

the misstatement of the law. See Doleman v. State, 112 Nev. 843, 848, 921 

P.2d 278, 280-81 (1996) (noting that strategic decisions are "virtually 

unchallengeable") (quoting Howard v. State, 106 Nev. 713, 722, 800 P.2d 

175, 180 (1990), abrogated on other grounds by Harte v. State, 116 Nev. 

1054, 1072 n.6, 13 P.3d 420, 432 n.6 (2000))). Further, appellant failed to 

provide this court with complete trial transcripts such that this court 

cannot review the district court's conclusion that he was not prejudiced. 

See Greene v. State, 96 Nev. 555, 558, 612 P.2d 686, 688 (1980) ("The 

burden to make a proper appellate record rests on appellant."). We 

therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying this claim. 

Appellant's remaining claims—the district court erred in 

denying a motion to continue trial; the State improperly excluded the only 

minority potential juror; and the State misstated the law in closing 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A 
J. 

argument at trial—could have been raised in appellant's direct appeal. 

Appellant failed to demonstrate good cause for his failure to do so. NRS 

34.810(1)(b); see also Franklin a State, 110 Nev. 750, 751-52, 877 P.2d 

1058, 1059 (1994), overruled on other grounds by Thomas v. State, 115 

Nev. 148, 979 P.2d 222 (1999). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

, J. 

Hardesty 

fiD1149% J. 

Douglas 

cc: Hon. Lidia Stiglich, District Judge 

Story Law Group 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A
<PAGE> 33

                                                                  Exhibit 32


                            Certifications


In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2004 of American General Finance, Inc. as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), each of, Frederick W. Geissinger, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, and Donald R. Breivogel, Jr., Senior
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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, as
          amended; 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/  Frederick W. Geissinger
                                      Frederick W. Geissinger
                                 President and Chief Executive Officer


                                 /s/  Donald R. Breivogel, Jr.
                                      Donald R. Breivogel, Jr.
                                 Senior Vice President and
                                   Chief Financial Officer


Date:  May 4, 2004
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, David A. Shadduck, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of TruServ Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
TruServ as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. TruServ's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for TruServ and we have:

            a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such
            disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
            supervision, to ensure that material information relating to
            TruServ, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
            us by others within those entities, particularly during the period
            in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

            b. evaluated the effectiveness of TruServ's disclosure controls and
            procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
            effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the
            end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
            and

            c. disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant's
            internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
            registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth
            fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
            affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
            registrant's internal control over financial reporting;

5. TruServ's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to TruServ's auditors and the audit committee of TruServ's
board of directors:

            a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
            design or operation of internal controls which are reasonably likely
            to adversely affect TruServ's ability to record, process, summarize
            and report financial information; and

            b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
            other employees who have a significant role in TruServ's internal
            control over financial reporting.

TRUSERV CORPORATION

Date: May 13, 2004

By /s/ DAVID A. SHADDUCK
   ---------------------
   David A. Shadduck
   Senior Vice President and
   Chief Financial Officer
U.S. flag
          Un sitio oficial del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos
            Así es como usted puede verificarlo
          Así es como usted puede verificarloDot gov**El .gov significa que es oficial.**
                
                Los sitios web del gobierno federal siempre usan un dominio .gov o .mil. Antes de compartir información confidencial en línea, asegúrese de estar en un sitio .gov o .mil.
          Https**Este sitio es seguro.**
                
                El **https://** medios todos los datos transmitidos son cifrados - en otras palabras, cualquier información o el historial de navegación que proporcione se transmite de forma segura.

    
          FTC: Translation Menu
  

        
EnglishFTC: Secondary Menu (ES)
  

        
    
    Reporte las estafas
                                
                          
        
                Reciba alertas **
Menú


    close


                  FTC: Main navigation (ES)
  

        
  
  Consejos para consumidores
      
    Guía para negocios
      
    Reembolsos
      
    Noticias
      
    Acerca de la FTC
      
    Buscar
        
        
        FTC: Secondary Menu (ES)
  

        
    
    Reporte las estafas
                                
                          
        
                Reciba alertas

          
  
          Consejos para consumidores
      
    
              Guía para negocios
      
    
              Reembolsos
      
    
              Noticias
      
    
              Acerca de la FTC
      
    
              Buscar Cases Tagged with Advertising and Marketing No results found for this tag.
  
    
    
    

  Return to top **
Menú
FTC: Secondary Menu (ES)
  

        


      Reporte las estafas
                              Reciba alertas
  
  
      FTC: Footer (es)
  

        


      Política de privacidad y noticias
Exhibit 10.2(a)


 


AMENDMENT
TO 


Winc, Inc.
2013 STOCK PLAN


 


This
Amendment (“Amendment”) to the Winc, Inc. 2013 Stock Plan, as amended (the “Plan”) is adopted
by the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Winc, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),
effective as of October 25, 2021 (the “Effective Date”). Capitalized terms used in this Amendment and not otherwise
defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Plan.


 


RECITALS


 


		A.	The Company currently maintains the Plan.



 


		B.	Pursuant to Section 11 of the Plan, the Board has the authority to at any time amend the Plan, subject
to approval of the Company’s stockholders to the extent required by applicable law (including an increase in the number of Shares
(as defined in the Plan) available for issuance under the Plan).



 


		C.	The Board believes it is in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders to amend the Plan to
increase the aggregate number of Shares reserved and available for issuance under the Plan.



 


AMENDMENT


 


The Plan is hereby amended
as follows, effective as of the date on which the Company’s stockholders approve this Amendment, except as otherwise provided below:


 


		1.	Section 4(a). The first sentence of Section 4(a) of the Plan is hereby deleted and
replaced in its entirety with the following:



 


“Not more than 3,256,906 Shares
may be issued under the Plan, subject to Subsection (b) below and Section 8(a).”


 


		2.	This Amendment shall be and, as of the date on which the Company’s stockholders approve this Amendment,
is hereby incorporated in and forms a part of the Plan.



 


		3.	Except as expressly provided herein, all terms and conditions of the Plan shall remain in full force and
effect.



 


*****
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 23

- 00887

- CR Damion Bryc e PEREZ , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 379th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2023CR5703 Honorable Ron Rangel , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios , Justice Beth Watkins , Justice Delivered and Filed: December 6, 2023
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION On October 3, 2023 appellant filed his notice of appeal stating his intent to appeal a sentence imposed on September 11, 2023. A revi ew of the clerk’s record showed it did not include any judgment entered on that date. It did, however, include a September 25, 2023 motion to dismiss the criminal action, filed by the Bexar County district attorney. The trial court granted the motion the s ame day and dismissed the criminal action. As a general rule, a criminal defendant’s right of appeal is limited to an appeal from a final judgment of conviction. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC . art. 44.02; see also State v. Sellers , 79004

- 23

- 00887

- CR

- 2

- S.W.2d 316, 321 n.4 (Te x. Crim. App. 1990) (“A defendant’s general right to appeal under [article 44.02] and its predecessors has always been limited to appeal from a ‘final judgment,’ though the statute does not contain this limitation on its face.”)

. Moreover, “[t]he courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law.” Ragston v. State , 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). A nd a criminal defendant is not permitted to appeal a trial court’s or der dismissing a charge against him. See Bohannan v.
State , 352 S.W.3d 47, 48 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2011, pet. ref’d) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction a defendant ’ s appeal from an order dismissing the criminal charges filed against him). Because it app eared we do not have jurisdiction to consider this appeal, we ordered appellant to show cause no later than November 2, 2023 why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. We admonished appellant that if he failed to satisfactorily respo nd to this order within the time provided, the appeal would be dismissed. Appellant has not filed a response. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 11



                      COTTON STATES LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
                 STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


The following computations set forth the calculations of basic and diluted net
income per common share and common share equivalents for the three-month period
ended March 31, 2000 and 1999.



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 BASIC             DILUTED
                                                 INCOME            INCOME
                                                 PER SHARE         PER SHARE
                                                 ---------         ---------
<S>                                              <C>               <C>


For the three months ended March 31, 2000
  Net income                                     $1,523,615        1,523,615
                                                 ==========        =========
Weighted average number of common
  shares outstanding                              6,346,448        6,346,448
Common share equivalents resulting
  from: dilutive stock options                           --               --
        restricted stock                                 --          117,727
                                                 ----------        ---------
Adjusted weighted average number
  of common and common equivalent
  shares outstanding                              6,346,448        6,467,157
                                                 ==========        =========

      Net income per common share                      0.24             0.24
                                                 ==========        =========



For the three months ended March 31, 1999
      Net income                                  1,207,422        1,207,422
                                                 ==========        =========
Weighted average number of common
  shares outstanding                              6,368,462        6,368,462

Common share equivalents resulting
    from: dilutive stock options                         --           56,783
          restricted stock                               --           78,019
                                                 ----------        ---------
Adjusted weighted average number
    of common and common equivalent
    shares outstanding                            6,368,462        6,503,244
                                                 ==========        =========

      Net income per common share                      0.19             0.19
                                                 ==========        =========
</TABLE>
509 

,. OFFICE OF THE ATA-ORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUBTIN ’ 

z”-,y” ‘. 

,. 

Eonorablh Ceo. E. Sheppard 

Oozptroller of Public Locounts 

Austin, Texas 

t the appropriations 

ital Statlstioe 

nlon No. O-l.394 

A. Cavis, State 

he special Vital 

ropriotions in 

th Ltq$.slature, 

he State Eealth 

cnles the Eaalth Cepartnent 

tics feea deposited in the 

t t::ose fess be apalled to 

atlstica fees In the last 

he expenditures fron the 

Kill you kindly give nie your 

to whether or not these fees should be transferred to the Goneral Rmonua Fund to apply against tho 

costs of the Vital 5tatlstics Eivisior~?~~ 

You state that our Opinion Ko. O-1394 *denies the 

t'e*ltb Departnent the use of thz 

lti tfic spaaial fund. 

vitcl statistics feea deposited 

?er:knpa a nore aaaurota steten;ent of tLat 

cert of our holdin& in Oplnlon No, O-l.394 would be that the 
mnorakile Geo. X, Sheppard, pagr I? 

vital statlstios fees collected are to be deaoslted in the 

Special.vitol statistice fund and applied to the payment 

of salarieo provided for in the appropriation to the Bureau 

of Vital Statistics. Insofar as these fees are l.nsuffiaiant 

to pay all the solaries of the bureau authorized by the 

appropriation bill, payment thereof’ is to bs supplemented 

from the General Revenue Fund. 

We underattid from your letter that no withdrawals 

whatevsr were made during the last f’lsaal year from the Vital 

Statistiob Fund, but -t&t all eXpenditUr8S of the Vital 

Statistics Bureau wer6 paid out of the General Revenue Fund. 

In order to rectify this situation, it is our 

opinion that you should ns you sueqst, transfer the manias 

depoeited in the Vital StatistiCa Fund to the General Revenue 

Fund to apply agabst the expenditures of the Bureau of Vital 

gtatistiae. That such is the l~nttntion of the Legislature is 

to be fourd In the follo~~ii:g provision of Seotlon 2, Bouse 

Bill 613, Act3 1939, (which appears ae Rule 54a of Art1016 4477, 

7eraon*S Civil Statutes) : 

* all EUU~ fees shall be kept by the State 

Treasuie; in a special and separate fund, to be known aa 

the VVitnl Statistias %md*, ad the amounts so deposited 

in tkis fund may be used for def’raying expenses inaurred 

in the enforoement and ogerotlon of this Act .* 

Yours very truly 

Assistant