alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OR\G\NAL

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

COMMISSIONERS: Jon Leibowitz, Chairman

Wiliam E. Kovacic

J. Thomas Rosch

Edith Ramirez

Julie Bril

In the Matter of )

)

)

)

)

. Public

Polypore International, Inc.,

a corporation.

Docket No. 9327

Errata Sheet for Answering Brief of Counsel Supporting the Complaint

Below are four changes to Complaint Counsel's Answering Brief:

Page 36: Citation "Von Kalinowski J. ANTITRUST LAW & TRADE REGULATION (2d ed.

1996) at § 4.03(4)" should read "Von Kalinowski J. ANTITRUST LAW & TRADE

REGULATION - Desk Edition (2d ed. 1996) at § 4.03(4)"

Page 44: First citation to "Chicago Bridge, 534 F.3d at 429; Merger Guidelines § 3"

should read "In re Chicago Bridge & Iron Co., 138 F.T.C. 1024, 1069 (FTC 2005)"

Page 53: Citation "Id. at p. 328" should read "ID-328"

Page 61: First citation to "Chicago Bridge, 138 F.T.C. at 1181-82, 1185-87" should read

"Chicago Bridge, 138 F.T.C. at 1181-82, 1185-87, 1376"
Dated: May 24,2010 Respectfully submitted,

By:

J. ROBERT ROBERTSON

Federal Trade Commission

Bureau of Competition

600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, DC 20580

Telephone: (202) 326-2008

Fax: (202) 326-2884

Complaint Counsel
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 24,2010, I filed via hand delivery an original, twelve

copies and an electronic copy of the foregoing Errata Sheet for the Answering Brief of

Counsel Supporting the Complaint with:

Donald S. Clark, Secretary

Office of the Secretar

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvana Avenue, NW, Rm. H-159

Washington, DC 20580

I hereby certify that on May 24, 2010, I served via hand and electronic mail

delivery two copies of the foregoing Errata Sheet for the Answering Brief of Counsel

Supporting the Complaint with:

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell

Administrative Law Judge

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20580

oalj@ftc.gov

I hereby certify that on May 24,2010, I fied via electronic and first class mail

delivery a copy of the foregoing Errata Sheet for the Answering Brief of Counsel

Supporting the Complaint with:

Wiliam L. Rikard, Jr., Esq.

Eric D . Welsh, Esq.

Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein, LLP

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000

Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

wiliamkard@parkerpoe.com

ericwelsh@parkerpoe.com

Linda D. Cunningh

Federal Trade Co . ission

600 Pennsylvania A enue,

Washington, DC 205

Telephone: (202) 326-2638

lcuningham@ftc.gov
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-96981 of BJ Services Company on Form S-3 and RegistrationStatement Nos. 33-36754, 33-52506, 33-62098, 33-58637, 333-88151, 333-88773, 333-61294, 333-118493 and 333-73348 of BJ Services Company on Form S-8 of our report dated January 26, 2005, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of BJ ServicesCompany for the year ended September 30, 2004. 

 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

 

Houston, Texas 

January 26, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 31 (Friday, February 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6953-6954]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3787]


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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services 
(CHAMPUS); Specialized Treatment Services (STS) Program

agency: Office of the Secretary, DoD.

action: Notice.

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

summary: This notice is to advise interested parties that Wilford Hall 
Medical Center (WHMC) has been designated the national Specialized 
Treatment Service facility for allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. 
All DoD beneficiaries who reside in the 48 contiguous United States and 
require allogeneic bone marrow transplantation,

[[Page 6954]]

Diagnosis Related Group 481, ICD 9 Code 41.03, must be evaluated by 
WHMC before receiving an allogeneic bone marrow transplant under direct 
military care of CHAMPUS cost sharing, except for those beneficiaries 
participating in DoD's demonstration project involving Phase II or 
Phase III clinical trials sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, 
as described in Federal Register Notice 61 FR 1899, January 24, 1996. 
Evaluation in person is preferred. Travel and lodging costs for the 
patient and, if medically indicated, one nonmedical attendant, will be 
reimbursed for the evaluation. It is possible to conduct the evaluation 
telephonically if the patient is unable to travel to WHMC. If the 
allogeneic bone marrow transplant cannot be performed at WHMC, WHMC 
will provide a medical necessity review in order to support its 
issuance of a Nonavailability Statement.

effective date: March 15, 1997.

for further information contact: Major Lewis, Bone Marrow 
Transplantation Service, WHMC, at (210) 670-7391, or Captain Orcutt, 
OSD (Health Affairs), at (703) 695-6800.

supplementary information: In FR DOC 93-27050, appearing in the Federal 
Register on November 5, 1993 (Vol. 58, 58955-58964), the final rule on 
the STS Program was published. Included in the final rule was a 
provision that notices of all military and civilian STS facilities be 
published in the Federal Register annually. This notice is issued under 
the authority of 10 U.S.C. 1105 and 32 CFR 199.4(a)(10).

    Dated: February 11, 1997.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 97-3787 Filed 2-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
#### Robert E. EGGERS et al., Appellants, v. Jimmie NARRON, Appellee.

No. 69-514.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 22, 1971.

Ordered that the following question passed upon in this court’s opinion filed October 27, 1971, 254 So.2d 382, is certified to the Supreme Court of Florida as a question of great public interest, to wit:

> “Where a Plaintiff Places into Evidence Only a Part of a Deposition of an Adverse Party, Does Such Use by the *23Plaintiff Open the Door Under the Last Clause of Rule 1.280(d) (4) R.C.P. for any Other Party, Including the Deponent Who is Voluntarily Absent From Trial, to Offer into Evidence any Other Part of the Deposition so far as the Same is Admissible Under Rules of Evidence?”
CROMPTON & KNOWLES CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
EXHIBIT 11 - STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
(In thousands, except per share data)

                Quarters Ended        Six Months Ended
                  June 27,   June 28,   June 27,   June 28,
                    1998       1997       1998       1997

                BASIC
Earnings
Earnings before extraordinary
  loss          $  39,795  $  31,768  $  71,738  $  58,379

Extraordinary loss on early extinguishment
  of debt         (13,843)    (1,227)   (15,794)    (1,227)

Net earnings    $  25,952  $  30,541  $  55,944  $  57,152

Shares
Weighted average shares
 outstanding       74,430     73,341     74,267     73,210

Per share
Earnings before extraordinary
  loss          $    .53   $    .44   $    .96   $    .80 

Extraordinary loss on early extinguishment
  of debt           (.18)      (.02)      (.21)      (.02)

Net earnings    $    .35   $    .42   $    .75   $    .78 

                DILUTED
Earnings
Earnings before extraordinary
  loss          $  39,795  $  31,768  $  71,738  $  58,379

Extraordinary loss on early extinguishment
  of debt         (13,843)    (1,227)   (15,794)    (1,227)

Net earnings    $  25,952  $  30,541  $  55,944  $  57,152

Shares
Weighted average shares
 outstanding       74,430     73,341     74,267     73,210

Common stock
 equivalents        2,383      1,834      2,346      1,738

Average shares
 outstanding       76,813     75,175     76,613     74,948

Per share
Earnings before extraordinary
  loss          $    .52   $    .43   $    .94   $    .78 

Extraordinary loss on early extinguishment
  of debt           (.18)      (.02)      (.21)      (.02)

Net earnings    $    .34   $    .41   $    .73   $    .76
EXHIBIT 11


                                  DBA SYSTEMS, INC.
                          COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                    (in thousands, except per share information)
                                    (Unaudited)



                                     	Three Months Ended 		Nine Months Ended
	                                           March 31	           March 31
	                                       1997       1996      	1997	      1996
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                                     <C>           <C>      <C>        <C>
Net Income	(A)	                      $    704	      $  272	  $ 1,399     	$746
         
Weighted Average Shares Outstanding	    4,419 	      4,459	    4,459	    4,442	
Incremental Shares - Stock Options	 	      20    	      29	       29	       44
Subtotal	(B)	                           4,439	       4,488	    4,488	    4,486		
Incremental Shares - Stock Options		        0            0	        0	        0
Total		(C)	                             4,439        4,488	    4,488	    4,486	 



Net Earnings per Common and Common
	Equivalent Share	(A/B)	                $ .16       	$ .06     	$ .31   	$ .17


Net Earnings per common share, Assuming
	Full Dilution (Cannot be
	Antidilutive  	 (A/C)	                 $ .16	       $ .06     	$ .31   	$ .17	
</TABLE>
<PAGE>12
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6575

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAVID ANTHONY MCKINNEY,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:93-cr-00267-NCT-1; 

1:13-cv-00745-NCT-JLW)

Submitted: October 27, 2017 Decided: November 7, 2017

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Anthony McKinney, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

David Anthony McKinney seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

(2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 

336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner 

must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the 

motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 

484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McKinney has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We deny the motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Dismissed and Opinion Filed May 12, 2016 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00963-CR 

CORNELIUS TURNER, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F15-52355-M 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Bridges and Lang 

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Appellant’s counsel has approved the 

motion. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that the appeal be DISMISSED and 

this decision be certified below for observance. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). 

PER CURIAM 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47 

150963F.U05 
S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

CORNELIUS TURNER, Appellant 

No. 05-15-00963-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F15-52355-M. 

Opinion delivered per curiam before Chief 

Justice Wright and Justices Bridges and 

Lang. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. 

Judgment entered May 12, 2016.
#### Lawton CARTER, Petitioner, v. SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, etc., Respondent.

No. 43201.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 22, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 268 So.2d 584.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

McCAIN, J., dissents.
No. 10488.

#### The Colonial National Bank et al. *v.*The Painesville National Bank et al.

Decided May 12, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Geauga county.

*Mr. T. H. Hogsett; Mr. Walter S. Lister; Mr. N. H. Bostwic-k*and *Mr. Clifford A. Neff,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Messrs. Alvord & Reynolds*and *Mr. Wm. G. King,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, C. J., Si-iauck, Crew, Summers, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21


                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

1.       Air Travel Services, Inc., a Tennessee corporation

2.       DFI, Inc., a Tennessee corporation

3.       O'Charley's Finance Company, Inc., a Tennessee corporation

4.       O'Charley's Management Company, Inc., a Tennessee corporation

5.       O'Charley's Restaurant Properties, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
         company

6.       O'Charley's Service Company, Inc., a Tennessee corporation

7.       O'Charley's Sports Bar, Inc., an Alabama corporation

8.       OCI, Inc., a Delaware corporation

9.       OPI, Inc., a Colorado corporation

10.      SRLS LLC 5001, a Delaware limited liability company

11.      SRLS LLC 5002, a Delaware limited liability company

12.      SRLS LLC 5003, a Delaware limited liability company

13.      SRLS LLC 5004, a Delaware limited liability company

14.      SRLS LLC 5005, a Delaware limited liability company

15.      SRLS LLC 5006, a Delaware limited liability company

16.      Stoney River Legendary Management, L.P., a Georgia limited partnership

17.      Stoney River, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company

18.      Stoney River Management Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation

19.      99 Commissary, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company

20.      99 Restaurants, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company

21.      99 Restaurants of Boston, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company


<PAGE>

22.      99 Restaurants of Massachusetts, a Massachusetts Business Trust

23.      99 Restaurants of Vermont, LLC, a Vermont limited liability company

24.      99 West, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation

25.      JFC Enterprises, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company

26.      Wi-Tenn Restaurants, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

J ESSICA SONYA GUERRA

,

Appellant

,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. **§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§** No. 08

- 2 2

- 00 18 3

- C R

Appeal from the

346th District Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 20210D02664 )

O R D E R

The reporter’s record was due to be f i led on November 2, 2022 . On November 9, 2022,

Mary Ann Marin , Official Court Reporter for the 346 th District Court of El Paso County, filed a

request for extension of time to file the reporter’s record advising the Court that she had not

received arrangement for the reporter’s record. On November 30 , 2022, she fil ed a second letter

stating the same. The request for extension of time from the court reporter will remain pending

the filing of the findings.

Therefore, it is ORDERED that the trial court conduct a hearing to determine whether

Appellant wishes to conti nue the appeal, whether Appellant has been deprived of a reporter’s

record, and whether Appellant is entitled to appointment of new counsel or has been deprived of

effective assistance of counsel. The trial court shall forward its findings to the District Clerk of El

Paso County, Texas, on or before December 12 , 2022 . The District Clerk shall prepare and forward

a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s findings and forward the same to this

Court on or before December 22 , 2022 . Further, the trial court’s reporter shall prepare, certify, and

file the record of the trial court proceedings with this Court on or before December 22 , 2022

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 3 0 th day of November , 20 2 2

.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox and Alley , JJ.
#### SEBRING PACKING COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, and Race and Race, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees.

No. 72-34.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 30, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 21, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# Press Sign-in Sheet
U.S. EPA Public Hearing on the Carbon Pollution Standard May 24, 201 2 • Chicago, IL

E-mail and Name Affiliation Telephone Number

# ,-:~~JS, .t?_;

# D~~:Ml!~ ./;"' '

# ~· rbe ll1_(\(_

# ~ 

# J .essIe 

## -'1 

# rn-sM·**e~" ""'·~**  

# <J /£0**~I** L:t,r;:c T 

### (y(!b( 

### r;**~'** 

### ( 

# lo i. 1 1 

## ./i,,vf q I 

### raJ 

# or'''" \ c. 0**~!'**



## ·. _,'-f""Cc

## ·~**ct~""'** I'(/ 

# G r<Pt' "'"" ,· ''E**~c(,.(..o,.,,** 

### ':c.k !I2r?ev."''c5 v 

## f'·fPlease Print or Write Legibly Page No. I
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 245 (Monday, December 22, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 66857]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33280]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-89-000]


Nautilus Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

December 16, 1997.
    Take notice that on December 12, 1997, Nautilus Pipeline Company, 
L.L.C. (Nautilus) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Original Volume No. 1, First Revised Tariff Sheet No. 279 proposed to 
become effective January 11, 1998.
    Nautilus states that the purpose of this filing is to change the 
Form of Service Agreement for Rate Schedule IT-1 to reflect 
interruptible service and not firm service in the second Whereas 
statement.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions and protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make Protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-33280 Filed 12-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
___________

No. 95-3360

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 *

v. *

 *

Loren M. Welsand, also known as * Appeal from the United States

Larry Willson, * District Court for the

 * District of Minnesota.

Appellant, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Sarah Welsand, also known as *

Sarah Willsend, *

 *

Defendant. *

___________

 Submitted: March 28, 1996

 Filed: April 3, 1996

___________

Before BEAM, LOKEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In 1993, Loren M. Welsand was convicted of various federal offenses

and ordered to pay restitution. The government subsequently instituted

this fraudulent-conveyance action alleging that Welsand had fraudulently

conveyed his vendor's interest in monthly contract payments to his

daughter, in an effort to keep the payments from being levied upon to

satisfy his remaining restitution obligation. Welsand repeatedly failed

to respond to the government's discovery requests, and ultimately delayed

the discovery process in this action for more than a year. In a second
 The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, Chief Judge, United States

1

District Court for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report

and recommendation of the Honorable Jonathan G. Lebedoff, United

States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2-

order compelling discovery, the district court warned Welsand that if he 1

failed to comply fully with the government's requests, default judgment

would be entered against him. When Welsand failed to produce all the

documents that had been requested, the district court entered default

judgment in favor of the government. 

We do not believe the district court abused its discretion in

entering default judgment against Welsand when he failed to fully comply

with the court's second discovery order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C)

(authorizing such a sanction when party "fails to obey an order to provide

or permit discovery"); Comiskey v. JFTJ Corp., 989 F.2d 1007, 1009 (8th

Cir. 1993) (standard of review); cf. Lorin Corp. v. Goto & Co., 700 F.2d

1202, 1208 (8th Cir. 1983) (dismissal with prejudice warranted where

plaintiff failed to comply fully with court's order to "make discovery,"

and provided only incomplete answers to interrogatories and small fraction

of requested documents). 

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.