alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 121

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas Representative Stephen S. F. Chen has been a

member of Taiwan’s diplomatic service for forty-seven

years;

Whereas Representative Chen has represented Taiwan’s interests in such countries as the Philippines, Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, and the United States;

Whereas Representative Chen has held a number of important positions in his government at home, including those

of Vice Foreign Minister and Deputy Secretary-General

to President Lee Teng-hui;

Whereas Representative Chen’s many years of service in the

United States include appointments as Taiwan’s ConsulGeneral in Atlanta from 1973 to 1979 and as Director

of the Coordination Council for North American Affairs

in Chicago from 1980 to 1982 and Los Angeles from

1988 to 1989;

Whereas Representative Chen has served with distinction as

Taiwan’s senior diplomat in the United States since

1997, when he became the Representative of the Taipei

Economic and Cultural Representative Office in Washington, D.C.; and

Whereas Representative Chen has been a friend of the United

States and earned the respect and genuine affection of
2

SCON 121 ES

many Members of the Senate and House of Representatives: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that—

3 (1) Representative Stephen Chen is to be con4 gratulated for his many years of distinguished serv5 ice to Taiwan and for his friendship to the United

6 States; and

7 (2) the best wishes of Congress are to be ex8 tended to Representative Chen and his family on the

9 occasion of his retirement.

Passed the Senate June 9, 2000.

Attest:

Secretary.
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 121

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Congratulating Representative Stephen S. F. Chen

on the occasion of his retirement from the diplomatic service of Taiwan, and for other purposes.
# L_2006325EN.01000501.xml

| 24.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 325/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 325/5

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1728/2006

of 23 November 2006

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 958/2006

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), and in particular the second subparagraph and point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 33(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 958/2006 of 28 June 2006 on a standing invitation to tender to determine refunds on exports of white sugar for the 2006/2007 marketing year (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 958/2006 of 28 June 2006 on a standing invitation to tender to determine refunds on exports of white sugar for the 2006/2007 marketing year (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 958/2006 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 23 November 2006, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 958/2006 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 23 November 2006, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender.

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

(3)

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the partial invitation to tender ending on 23 November 2006, the maximum export refund for the product referred to in Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 958/2006 shall be 29,824 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 24 November 2006.

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

Done at Brussels, 23 November 2006.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1585/2006 (OJ L 294, 25.10.2006, p. 19).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 175, 29.6.2006, p. 49.

2

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             558
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,774
<ALLOWANCES>                                        44
<INVENTORY>                                      2,384
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,720
<PP&E>                                             787
<DEPRECIATION>                                     550
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,844
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              967
<BONDS>                                          1,275
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            26
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,562
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,844
<SALES>                                          3,524
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,524
<CGS>                                            2,241
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,241
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,420
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 113
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,941
<INCOME-TAX>                                       731
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,211
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,211
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .48
        

</TABLE>
TELEPHONE CONTACT SUMMARY 

Brick and Structural Clay Products 

FROM: Gabrielle Raymond 

 RTI International 

DATE OF CONTACT: August 31, 2009 

ORGANIZATION CONTACTED: 

Boral Bricks Inc. 

200 Mansell Court East Suite 305 

Roswell, GA 30076 

PERSON CONTACTED: 

Terry Schimmel 

334-480-2488 

PURPOSE OF CONTACT: 

For information on the configuration of controlled sawdust-fired tunnel kilns at two 

different Boral Bricks, Inc. (Boral) facilities. 

SUMMARY OF CONTACT: 

Mr. Schimmel stated that, for the EU5 kiln at the Augusta, Georgia plant, the dry 

injection fabric filter (DIFF) is installed on the kiln exhaust. Boral purchases dried 

sawdust and does not operate a sawdust dryer at the plant. 

For the 6BK kiln at the Salisbury, North Carolina plant, the DIFF is installed on 

the kiln exhaust. The kiln exhaust can be diverted to the sawdust dryer or can go through 

the DIFF depending on if the dryer is running and the demand for dried sawdust.
#### STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Charlie P. ULIBARRI, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 18489.

Supreme Court of Utah.

July 22, 1983.

*569Jo Carol Nesset-Sale, Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.

David L. Wilkinson, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Defendant was convicted by the trial judge, sitting without a jury, of robbery.1 He appeals and also seeks substitution of a misdemeanor conviction for theft.2 His theory is that facts were not adduced to support the higher offense of robbery which requires a taking from a person, accompanied by placing him in fear. Defendant asserts that once a theft is committed, it is not possible thereafter to commit a robbery.

The facts-, in brief, reflect that defendant and one Gallegos picked up three packs of beer from the rear part of an all night miniature-market. They walked by the checkout stand at which time the checker, about four feet away, called for payment of the beer. The defendant then put his hand in his pocket, made out like a gunman, and said “Everything’s cool, hold it there or I’ll blow you away.” The two then left the store and were apprehended shortly thereafter by a passing policeman.

The defendant gratuitously suggests that the checker was not put in fear and that, even so, it was impossible to commit robbery since the theft was already a fait accompli. The trial judge did not accept such theory.

The taking was simultaneous with the robbery which occurred in the presence of the victim, before an escape had been accomplished. There is a case from New Jersey3 which involves similar facts with respect to the sequence of events going' to make up the offense. That court held as follows:

> Reason and logic would seem to dictate that where an owner of premises takes ... precautions against thievery and his opposition is overcome as he interposes himself to prevent the thief from taking the money from the portion of his premises in which it had been kept, his *use of force is concurrent or concomitant with the taking,*thus constituting the thief’s action as robbery, (emphasis added) (citations omitted).4

We are of the opinion that the chronology of events in the instant case, and the actions of the defendant, support the trial court’s judgment.

The judgment is affirmed.

1

. In violation of U.C.A., 1953, § 76-6-301.

2

. In violation of U.C.A., 1953, § 76-6-404.

3

. *State v. Culver,*109 N.J.Super. 108, 262 A.2d 422 (1970).

4

*.See also State v. Douglas,*337 So.2d 407 (Fla.App.1976). *State v. Wilborn,*525 S.W.2d 87 (Mo.App.1975); and *State v. Roberts,*30 Utah 2d 407, 518 P.2d 1246 (1974).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
registrant's December 31, 1996 audited balance sheet, income statement and cash
flow statement, and notes thereto, and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       5,113,000
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             4,509,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                171,667,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      28,513,000
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        28,015,000
<LOANS>                                    258,833,000
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,577,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             482,394,000
<DEPOSITS>                                 358,060,000
<SHORT-TERM>                                71,250,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          6,883,000
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,543,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  43,658,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             482,394,000
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             19,557,000
<INTEREST-INVEST>                           10,479,000
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               485,000
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            30,521,000
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          14,436,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          16,428,000
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       14,093,000
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  938,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                            (20,000)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              9,814,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,996,000
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   5,996,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,014,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.03
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.41
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,549,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,578,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  998,000
<RECOVERIES>                                    59,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,577,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,327,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        250,000
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11



                          COLLINS & AIKMAN CORPORATION

      COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE IN MILLIONS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATE


                                   (UNAUDITED)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                   YEAR ENDED
                                                                         -----------------------------
                                                                         DECEMBER 31,      DECEMBER 31,
                                                                                 2003              2002
                                                                                 ----              ----


<S>                                                                      <C>               <C>
Average common shares outstanding during the period:
            Basic ....................................................           83.6              76.3

Incremental shares under stock options computed under
           the price of issuer's stock during the period .............             --                --
                                                                                -----             -----

           Total shares for basic EPS ................................           83.6              76.3

Loss from continuing operations
           before extraordinary item .................................          (59.1)            (51.3)

Income from discontinued operations, net of income
            taxes of $0.8,and $6.3 ...................................            1.6               9.5

Cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle,
            Net of income taxes of $0 ................................             --             (11.7)
                                                                                -----             -----

            Net loss .................................................          (57.5)            (53.5)
                                                                                =====             =====
            Loss on redemption of  subsidiary preferred stock ........             --             (36.3)

            Net loss attributable to common shareholders .............          (57.5)            (89.8)
                                                                                =====             =====

Net income (loss) per basic and diluted common share:
            Continuing operations ....................................          (0.71)            (1.15)
            Discontinued operations ..................................           0.02              0.12
            Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle ......             --             (0.15)
                                                                                -----             -----
            Net loss attributable to common shareholders .............          (0.69)            (1.18)
                                                                                =====             =====
</TABLE>
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-3440, 333-43353, 333-79639 and 333-72786 of Investors Financial Services
Corp. (the "Company") on Form S-8 and in Registration Statement No. 333-76885
of the Company on Form S-3 of our report dated February 14, 2003, appearing
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December
31, 2002 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an
explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards Board ("SFAS") No. 133, Accounting for Derivative
Instruments and Hedging Activities, in 2001 and the adoption of SFAS No. 142,
Goodwill and Intangible Assets, in 2002).

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-3440, 333-43353, 333-79639 and 333-72786 of the Company on Form S-8 and in
Registration Statement No. 333-76885 of the Company on Form S-3 of our report on
management's assertion that Investors Bank & Trust Company maintained effective
internal control over financial reporting, including safeguarding of assets,
dated February 14, 2003, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the
Company for the year ended December 31, 2002.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
February 27, 2003
#### LYNCH v. DURFEY.

Nos. 9330, 9331.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Dec. 7, 1939.

Henry L. Lynch, of Las Vegas, Nev., in pro per.

Davis & Thorne, of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Before DENMAN, MATHEWS, and STEPHENS, Circuit Judges.

MATHEWS, Circuit Judge.

Helen Durfey has moved this court to docket and dismiss two appeals which she says were taken by Henry L. Lynch in suits wherein he was plaintiff and she was defendant in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of California.

Rule 75 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, provides for the settlement and certification 'of records on appeal and. for the transmission thereof to the appellate court. Subdivision (j) of Rule 75 provides: “If, prior to the time the complete record on appeal is settled and certified as herein provided, a party desires to docket the appeal in order to make in the appellate court a motion for dismissal * * * the clerk of the district court at his request shall certify and transmit to the appellate court a copy of such portion of the record or proceedings below as is needed for that purpose.”

This rule has not been complied with in these cases. The complete record on appeal has not been settled or certified in either case, nor has the clerk of the district court certified or transmitted to this court any copy of any portion of the record or proceedings below. There have been filed in this court certificates of the clerk of the district court, stating that certain proceedings were had in that court, but these certificates are not records or copies of records or copies of proceedings.

There is no proper showing — this is to say, no record showing — that the appeals here sought to be docketed and dismissed were actually taken; or that, if taken, they should be docketed; or that, if docketed, they should be dismissed. The pending motions must, therefore, be denied. Such denial, however, will not preclude the filing of new motions, upon a proper showing.

Motions denied without prejudice.
#### STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Willie Byrnes JONES and Frank Edward Jones, Respondents.

No. 88-2486.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

June 15, 1989.

*1173John Franklin Wade of Kane & Williams, Orlando, for petitioner.

Scott L. Sterling, Orlando, for respondents.

ORFINGER, Judge.

State Farm, etc. seeks certiorari review of a discovery order requiring it to produce its entire claim file to its insured who has filed a first party bad faith action against the insurer. We grant the writ and quash the order.

Since the entry of the order below, the Florida Supreme Court has held, in *Kujawa v. Manhattan National Life Insurance Co.,*541 So.2d 1168 (Fla.1989) that in a first party bad faith action brought by an insured against his insurer pursuant to section 624.155(l)(b)l, Florida Statutes (1987), the relationship between the parties is adversarial rather than fiduciary, and the insurer is not required to produce those portions of the claim file which are subject to the work product doctrine and attorney-client privilege.

In view of the holding in *Kujawa,*the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law, and we therefore quash the order under review.

Certiorari GRANTED; Order QUASHED.

DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2370 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2370

   To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial flowers of man-made 
                       fibers assembled as clips.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

 Mr. Voinovich introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial flowers of man-made 
                       fibers assembled as clips.

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

SECTION 1. ARTIFICIAL FLOWERS OF MAN-MADE FIBERS ASSEMBLED AS CLIPS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Artificial flowers  Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        of man-made                                                        31/2011.......
                        fibers assembled
                        as clips
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        6702.90.35)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```