alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2006184EN.01001101.xml

| 6.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 184/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 184/11

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1026/2006

of 5 July 2006

laying down the allocation coefficient to be applied under the Community tariff quota for imports of maize from third countries provided for by Regulation (EC) No 969/2006

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

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

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 969/2006 of 29 June 2006 opening and providing for the administration of a Community tariff quota for imports of maize from third countries (2), and in particular Article 4(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Regulation (EC) No 969/2006 opens an annual tariff quota of 242 074 tonnes of maize (serial number 09.4131). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 969/2006 opens an annual tariff quota of 242 074 tonnes of maize (serial number 09.4131).

| (2) | Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 969/2006 fixes a quantity of 242 074 tonnes for tranche 2 for the period from 1 July to 31 December 2006. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 969/2006 fixes a quantity of 242 074 tonnes for tranche 2 for the period from 1 July to 31 December 2006.

| (3) | The quantities applied for by 13.00 (Brussels time) on Monday 3 July 2006 in accordance with Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 969/2006 exceed the quantities available. The extent to which licences may be issued should therefore be determined and the allocation coefficient laid down to be applied to the quantities applied for, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The quantities applied for by 13.00 (Brussels time) on Monday 3 July 2006 in accordance with Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 969/2006 exceed the quantities available. The extent to which licences may be issued should therefore be determined and the allocation coefficient laid down to be applied to the quantities applied for,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Each application for an import licence for the maize quota lodged by 13.00 (Brussels time) on Monday 3 July 2006 and forwarded to the Commission in accordance with Article 4(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 969/2006 shall be accepted at a rate of 0,46439 % of the quantity applied for.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 6 July 2006.

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

Done at Brussels, 5 July 2006.

For the Commission

J. L. DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 176, 30.6.2006, p. 44.

2

---
Exhibit 32.1 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2014 (the “Report”) of Goodman Networks Incorporated (the “Company”), the undersigned hereby certify in their capacities as Chief Executive Officer and President and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to their knowledge: 

| (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report. |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Date: May 15, 2014 |   | By:    |   | /s/ Ron B. Hill                       |
|--------------------|--------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|               |   | Name:  |   | Ron B. Hill                           |
|               |   | Title: |   | Chief Executive Officer and President |
|               |   |   |   |                                  |
| Date: May 15, 2014 |   | By:    |   | /s/ Randal S. Dumas                   |
|               |   | Name:  |   | Randal S. Dumas                       |
|               |   | Title: |   | Chief Financial Officer               |

The foregoing certification is furnished as an exhibit to the Report and will not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
#### Frank R. MUDANO, Personal Representative of the Estate of Salvo Mudano, Appellant, v. ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Appellees.

No. 88-1287.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 31, 1989.

Alyssa M. Reiter of Bunnell and Woulfe, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

*877Rhea P. Grossman of Rhea P. Grossman, P.A., Miami, and Lanza, O’Connor, Armstrong, Sinclair & Tunstall, P.A., Coral Gables, for Appellee-Community Asphalt Corp.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order taxing fees and costs pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes. The statute provides for the award of attorney’s fees and costs un-. der specified circumstances where an offer of judgment is not accepted. The accident and injury in question occurred prior to July 1, 1986, the effective date of the statute.

Chapter 768, Florida Statutes, “NEGLIGENCE,” is divided into three parts. Part III, “DAMAGES,” contains sections 768.71 through 768.81. Section 768.71, entitled “Applicability; conflicts,” provides, in part:

> (2) This part applies only to causes of action arising on or after July 1, 1986, and does not apply to any cause of action arising before that date.

The trial court ruled that the statute was procedural and therefore applied retroactively. However, we conclude that the statute, by its terms, does not apply to offers of judgment where the underlying cause of action accrued prior to its effective date. Further, the statute, in any event, affects substantive rights, and therefore may only be applied prospectively. *See Smith v. Department of Insurance,*507 So.2d 1080 (Fla.1987). *Cf. Young v. Altenhaus,*472 So.2d 1152 (Fla.1985); *Tindall v. Miller,*463 So.2d 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA), *rev. denied,*475 So.2d 695 (Fla.1985); *Parrish v. Mullis,*458 So.2d 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Therefore, the order is reversed and the cause remanded.

DOWNEY, GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., concur.
IV

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 138

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 28, 2000

Referred to the Committee on International Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that a day of peace and

sharing should be established at the beginning of each year.

Whereas human progress in the 21st century will depend

upon global understanding and cooperation in finding

positive solutions to hunger and violence;

Whereas the turn of the millennium offers unparalleled opportunity for humanity to examine its past, set goals for

the future, and establish new patterns of behavior;

Whereas the people of the United States and the world observed the day designated by the United Nations General

Assembly as ‘‘One Day in Peace, January 1, 2000’’

(General Assembly Resolution 54/29);

Whereas the example set on that day ought to be recognized

globally and repeated each year;

Whereas the people of the United States seek to establish

better relations with one another and with the people of

all countries; and
2

SCON 138 RFH

Whereas celebration by the breaking of bread together traditionally has been the means by which individuals, societies, and nations join together in peace: 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) each year should begin with a day of peace

4 and sharing during which—

5 (A) people around the world should gather

6 with family, friends, neighbors, their faith com7 munity, or people of another culture to pledge

8 nonviolence in the new year and to share in a

9 celebratory new year meal; and

10 (B) Americans who are able should match

11 or multiply the cost of their new year meal with

12 a timely gift to the hungry at home or abroad

13 in a tangible demonstration of a desire for in14 creased friendship and sharing among people

15 around the world; and

16 (2) the President should issue a proclamation

17 each year calling on the people of the United States

18 and interested organizations to observe such a day

19 with appropriate programs and activities.

Passed the Senate October 27 (legislative day, September 22), 2000.

Attest: GARY SISCO,

Secretary.
#### HOME SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. Dr. Jerome E. McCUIN.

No. 87-CC-2582.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 8, 1988.

In re Shamrock Construction Co. — Third Party; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, supervisory writ; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. CW-8310; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “I”, No. 84-19307.

Denied.
#### David E. KING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-1436.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 24, 1988.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Brad Permar, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Erica M. Raffel, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

HALL, Judge.

David E. King appeals from his judgment and sentence for armed robbery. He argues that the trial court erred in exceeding the presumptive guidelines sentence without clear and convincing reasons. We reverse and remand for resentencing within the guidelines.

The appellant was tried by jury and found guilty of three counts of armed robbery. Thereafter, at the sentencing hearing the trial court found the appellant to be a habitual offender and departed from the presumptive guidelines sentence solely on that basis.

The appellant appealed from that departure sentence and this court affirmed the trial court’s decision to depart but certified as a question of great public importance whether the appellant’s departure sentence could be justified by his habitual offender status. *King v. State,*494 So.2d 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). The supreme court answered that question in the negative stating: “section 775.084 cannot operate as an alternative to guidelines sentencing ... nor can the habitual offender statute remain viable as a reason for departure_” The supreme court remanded with directions that the case be returned to the trial court for resentencing in accordance with its opinion. *King v. State,*502 So.2d 1243 (Fla.1987).

Upon resentencing, the trial court again departed from the sentencing guidelines and gave four new reasons for departure.

*311The appellant argues that the trial court’s reasons for departure at resentenc-ing are invalid. We need not address that argument in view of *Shull v. Dugger,*515 So.2d 748 (Fla.1987).

In *Shull*the supreme court held that when all the reasons stated by the trial court to justify departure are found to be invalid on appeal, the trial court may not enunciate entirely new reasons for departure at resentencing, but upon remand must sentence the defendant within the presumptive guidelines range. The court declined to carve out an exception for cases in which the reasons given for departure were valid at the time of the original sentencing according to appellate decisions but were later invalidated by the supreme court.

We therefore reverse the appellant’s sentence and remand for sentencing within the presumptive guidelines range.

Reversed and remanded.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
#### Ervin and Carla RINEHART, Individually and as Administrators of the Estate of the Minor, Janean v. Billy DAVIS, Sr. and James E. Pigrenet, III.

No. 89-CC-0704.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 21, 1989.

In re Rinehart, Ervin; Rinehart, Carla;— Plaintiff(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, supervisory, remedial, prohibition and mandamus; to . the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CW89 0071; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 328,083-A.

Denied.

CALOGERO and DENNIS, JJ., would grant the writ.
Exhibit 32.1

                         CERTIFICATION OF 10-KSB REPORT
                                       OF
                          ZYNEX MEDICAL HOLDINGS, INC.
                      FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2005

     1.   The undersigned is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Zynex
          Medical Holdings, Inc. ("Zynex"). This Certification is made pursuant
          to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This Certification
          accompanies the 10-KSB Report of Zynex for the year ended December 31,
          2005.

     2.   We certify that such 10-KSB Report fully complies with the require-
          ments of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
          and that the information contained in such 10-KSB Report fairly
          presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
          results of operations of Zynex.

This Certification is executed as of April 18, 2006.


                                           /s/  Thomas Sandgaard
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Thomas Sandgaard
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer

                                           /s/  Peter J. Leveton
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Peter J. Leveton
                                           Chief Financial Officer
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2195 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on absorbent resin. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. CASEY) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on absorbent 

resin. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ABSORBENT RESIN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.22.11 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 absorbent resin) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and 

7 inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2195 IS

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

2 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Lawrence STERLING.

No. 87-KH-2274.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 13, 1987.

In re Sterling, Lawrence; applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “A”, No. 260-116.

Denied.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In re Kidwell & Company, Inc.

Appellate case number: 01

- 22

- 00439

- CV

Trial court case number: 2021

- 04668

Trial court: 215th District Court of Harris County

Relator’s emergency motion to stay the underlying trial court proceedings is DENIED.

Judge’s signature:

_____

/s/ Sarah B . Landau

_______ Acting individually

Date: ___ June 1 5, 2022

____
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2216 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain food processors. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. LIEBERMAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain food processors. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN FOOD PROCESSORS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2216 IS

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Food processors powered by 

direct induction motors, each 

having a multiple sealed bowl 

system with height adjusting 

seals in the bowl covers; having a blade lock that allows 

the processing blade to lock 

on to the processing bowl, 

with a bowl capacity of 2.8 liters or more but not over 

3.85 liters for the largest 

bowl (provided for in subheading 8509.40.00) ............. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### Wilford Knighton SHARKEY, Sr., Individually and as Legal Tutor of the Estate of Sherry Fugler, and Doris McDaniel Sharkey, Individually and as Legal Undertutrix of the Estate of Sherry Lynn Fugler v. STERLING DRUG, INC., Evans Ray Glasgow d/b/a Thrift Town Pharmacy and ABC Insurance Company.

No. 89-CC-0253.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 1, 1989.

In re Sterling Drug Inc.; — Defendant(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 83956; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CW89 0072.

Stay denied. Writ denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2394 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2394

      To modify and extend temporarily the duty reduction on PHBA.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To modify and extend temporarily the duty reduction on PHBA.

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

SECTION 1. PHBA.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.29.03 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to PHBA) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``3.1%'' and inserting ``Free''; and
            (2) by striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/
        2011''.
    (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 enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>



                                   Exhibit 21

HUDSON HOTELS CORPORATION

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                      STATE OF INCORPORATION OR
NAME                                          ORGANIZATION                           DOING BUSINESS AS
----                                  -------------------------                      -----------------
<S>                                  <C>                                      <C>
Watertown Hotel Corp.                        New York                         Watertown Hotel Corp.
Delray Beach Hotel Corp.                     New York                         Delray Beach Hotel Corp.
Brookwood Funding Corp.              New York                                 Brookwood Funding Corp.
950 Jefferson Hotel Corp.            New York                                 950 Jefferson Hotel Corp.
Victor Hotel Corp.                           New York                         Victor Hotel Corp.
Canandaigua Hotel Corp.                      New York                         Canandaigua Hotel Corp.
Hudson Tonawanda Corp.               New York                                 Hudson Tonawanda Corp.
HHC Management Corp.                         New York                         HHC Management Corp.
Hudson Hotels Properties Corp.               New York                         Hudson Hotels Properties Corp.
HH Properties-Southwest, Inc.                New York                         HH Properties-Southwest, Inc.
HH Properties-Tonawanda, Inc.                New York                         HH Properties-Tonawanda, Inc.
HH Properties-I, Inc.                        New York                         HH Properties-I, Inc.
HH Properties-II, Inc.                       New York                         HH Properties-II, Inc.
Ridge Road Hotel Corp.                       New York                         Ridge Road Hotel Corp.
HH Transit Management, Inc.                  New York                         HH Transit Management, Inc.
HH Bridge G.P., Inc.                         Virginia                         HH Bridge GP, Inc.


</TABLE>