alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          25,486
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  408,028
<ALLOWANCES>                                    61,825
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               453,442
<PP&E>                                       2,185,677
<DEPRECIATION>                                 635,393
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,313,004
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          422,984
<BONDS>                                        677,582
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,110
<OTHER-SE>                                     977,128
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,313,004
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               569,918
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  502,932
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                29,675
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 9,140
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,367
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,304)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (676)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (783)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (783)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 225 (Friday, November 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 82437]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25895]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: November 24, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
November 17, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 17 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-59, CP2024-60.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-25895 Filed 11-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
[No. 37875.

Department One.

May 28, 1965.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Norman Franklin Rogers, *Appellant.*
      ***

*M. Brock Evans,*for appellant.

*Charles O. Carroll*and *John M. Watson,*for respondent.

Reported in 402 P.2d 501.

Per Curiam.

A jury found the defendant guilty of assault in the second degree, and from the judgment and sentence based on that verdict the defendant appeals. Counsel on appeal did not represent appellant during the trial.

The assault alleged was a serious stabbing. It is urged that the defendant was not adequately identified as the individual who stabbed the prosecuting witness, and that there was not sufficient evidence to take the case to the jury. There was positive identification by the prosecuting witness. There was also a statement made by a third party (who was not available to testify) to the arresting officer in the presence of the defendant that he, the defendant, had done *359the stabbing; and there was no denial by the defendant at that time. The defendant thereafter told two officers that he had stabbed the prosecuting witness. The motion to dismiss at the close of the case and the motion in arrest of judgment were properly denied. *State v. Jesse,*65 Wn.2d 510, 512, 397 P.2d 1018 (1965); *State v. Reynolds,*51 Wn.2d 830, 322 P.2d 356 (1958).

It is contended that the trial court abused its discretion by raising the question, out of the presence of the jury, as to whether venue had been adequately established. In consequence of this suggestion, the state recalled a witness to testify that Second Avenue in Seattle (where the stabbing occurred) was also in King County, Washington. Defense counsel was, to use the parlance, “lying in the weeds,” ready, he avers, in the event of an adverse verdict to raise the question that venue had not been established. He felt himself aggrieved and his client prejudiced by the suggestion made by the trial court, which had resulted in venue being established beyond the peradventure of a doubt by getting “King County” into the record.

There was no prejudice to the defendant because the testimony that the stabbing occurred on Second Avenue in Seattle was sufficient to establish venue.1
      *State v. Hardamon,*29 Wn.2d 182, 188, 186 P.2d 634 (1947); see, *State v. Smith,*65 Wn.2d 372, 397 P.2d 416 (1964), and cases cited.

The colloquy and suggestion, out of the presence of the jury, could have had no conceivable effect upon the verdict; that it might (if venue had not already been established) have interfered with defense counsel’s intended coup, in no Way denied due process or a fair trial to the defendant. As we have said:

> It seems fairly obvious that the ultimate in a criminal trial should be the ascertainment of the truth; . . . it should not be a matter of luck or perhaps misadventure *360of one of the contestants during the course of a trial; . . . . *State v. Stacy,*43 Wn.2d 358, 367, 261 P.2d 400 (1953).

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Nevertheless, careful prosecutors will be explicit in their proof of venue. A philosopher has said: “A word to the wise is sufficient.”
#### Kenneth Loughry, Respondent, v Citibank (New York State) et al., Appellants.

(Appeal No. 3.)

—Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs *(see, Kabelac v Harding,*127 AD2d 1011). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Boehm, J.—Resettlement.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Lawton, Lowery and Davis, JJ.
AFL

- CIO

August 2 5 , 201 4

Mr. Anthony Foxx, Secretary United States Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Secretary Foxx:

On behalf of the 110 affiliates and 65,000 members of the San Mateo County Central La bor Council, which includes the working men and women of the San Francisco International Airport, I write to express our vehement opposition to Norwegian Air International ’s (NAI) application for a foreign air carrier permit

. Should the application be all owed to go forward, it will set a dangerous precedent for employment practices for all carriers.

The business model used by NAI allow s companies to register in a different country to avoid the regulation s, taxes and labor standards of their own. Acceptanc e of NAI’s application, and by extension condoning the carrier’s practice of offshoring work to reduce industry standard s,

c ircumventing labor rights

, and undermining oversight for health and safety, will have far reaching implications for all aspects of t he global aviation industry.

Additionally, the Bay Area has some of the highest cost s of living in the N ation. The race to the bottom by any employer results in more families in poverty, more tax burdens on the public who foot the bill for safety net ser vices, and the consequence of high employee turnover which

undermines a stable workforce environment of dedicated employees.

We hope that the United States will not sanction this degradation of labor practices. Therefore we urge the denial of NAI’s applica tion. Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully, 

# Shelley Kessler

Shelley Kessler Executive Secretary Treasurer San Mateo County Central Labor Council

Vice

- President, California Labor Federation

opeiu 3 AFL

- CIO 174
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1533 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to improve access to mental 

health services under the Medicare program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 5, 2019 

Ms. LEE of California (for herself, Ms. HILL of California, Ms. WILD, Mrs. 

WATSON COLEMAN, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. BISHOP of 

Georgia, Ms. CLARKE of New York, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. EVANS, Mr. 

DEFAZIO, Mr. KILMER, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. SERRANO, and Mr. SOTO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and 

Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to improve 

access to mental health services under the Medicare program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Improving Access to 

5 Mental Health Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1533 IH

1 SEC. 2. IMPROVED ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES 

2 UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM. 

3 (a) ACCESS TO CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKERS.—Sec4 tion 1833(a)(1)(F)(ii) of the Social Security Act (42 

5 U.S.C. 1395l(a)(1)(F)(ii)) is amended by striking ‘‘75 

6 percent of the amount determined for payment of a psy7 chologist under clause (L)’’ and inserting ‘‘85 percent of 

8 the fee schedule amount provided under section 1848’’. 

9 (b) ACCESS TO CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER SERVICES

10 PROVIDED TO RESIDENTS OF SKILLED NURSING FACILI11 TIES.— 

12 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 1888(e)(2)(A)(ii) of 

13 the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

14 1395yy(e)(2)(A)(ii)) is amended by inserting ‘‘clin15 ical social worker services,’’ after ‘‘qualified psychol16 ogist services,’’. 

17 (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 

18 1861(hh)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

19 1395x(hh)(2)) is amended by striking ‘‘and other 

20 than services furnished to an inpatient of a skilled 

21 nursing facility which the facility is required to pro22 vide as a requirement for participation’’. 

23 (c) ACCESS TO THE COMPLETE SET OF CLINICAL SO24 CIAL WORKER SERVICES.—Section 1861(hh)(2) of the So25 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(hh)(2)) is amended— 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1533 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘for the diagnosis and treatment 

2 of mental illnesses (other than services’’ and insert3 ing ‘‘, including services for the diagnosis and treat4 ment of mental illnesses and services for health and 

5 behavior assessment and intervention as identified as 

6 of January 1, 2019, by HCPCS codes 96150 

7 through 96161 (and any succeeding codes), but not 

8 including services’’; and 

9 (2) by striking ‘‘) which’’ and inserting ‘‘, 

10 which’’. 

11 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

12 this section shall apply to items and services furnished on 

13 or after January 1, 2020. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
   
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the (a) Joint Registration
Statement on Form S-4 (File No. 333-39875 and No. 333-39875-01) of Patriot
American Hospitality, Inc. and Wyndham International, Inc. (formerly Patriot
American Hospitality Operating Company), (b) Joint Registration Statement on
Form S-4 (File No. 333-40041 and No. 333-40041-01) of Patriot American
Hospitality, Inc. and Wyndham International Inc. (formerly Patriot American
Hospitality Operating Company), (c) Joint Registration Statement on Form S-3
(File No. 333-46353 and No. 333-46353-01) and related Prospectus of Patriot
American Hospitality, Inc. and Wyndham International, Inc. (formerly Patriot
American Hospitality Operating Company), (d) Joint Registration Statement on
Form S-3 (File No. 333-51289 and No. 333-51289-01) and related Prospectus of
Patriot American Hospitality, Inc. and Wyndham International, Inc., (e) Joint
Registration Statement on Form S-3 (File No. 333-51779 and No. 333-51779-01)
and related Prospectus of Patriot American Hospitality, Inc. and Wyndham
International, Inc., (f) Joint Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No.
333-56315 and No. 333-56315-01) of Patriot American Hospitality, Inc. and
Wyndham International, Inc., (g) Joint Registration Statement on Form S-3
(File No. 333-58705 and No. 333-58705-01) and related Prospectus of Patriot
American Hospitality, Inc. and Wyndham International, Inc., (h) Joint
Registration Statement on Form S-3 (File No. 333-64357 and No. 333-64357-01)
and related Prospectus of Patriot American Hospitality, Inc. and Wyndham
International, Inc., and (i) Joint Registration Statement on Form S-3 (File
No. 333-65339 and No. 333-65339-01) and related Prospectus of Patriot American
Hospitality, Inc. and Wyndham International, Inc. of our report dated March 1,
1999, with respect to the financial statements and schedules of Patriot
American Hospitality, Inc. and Wyndham International, Inc. included in this
Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 1998.     
 
                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
 
Dallas, Texas
   
May 6, 1999
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Rene Olvera Lopez, Appellant

No. 06

- 13

- 00259

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 71st District Court of Harrison County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 06

- 0155X ). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Carter and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the

judgment of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment to delete the fees

for appellant ’ s court

- appointed attorney

. As modified, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

We note that the appellant, Rene Olvera Lopez, has adequately indicated his inability to

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED A PRIL 30, 2014
BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III
CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### Mary J. Pfeiffer, Respondent, v Ronald M. Cinelli, Appellant.

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition denied. Memorandum: Family Court erred

in granting the petition for an upward modification of child support. The parties’ separation agreement provided that the amount of child support was based on the parties’ income at the "time of the divorce”. The only direct evidence of respondent’s income at the time of the divorce was his statement that he was earning $40,000 per year. That statement was supported by his 1988 tax return. When petitioner commenced this proceeding some 18 months later, respondent was still earning approximately $40,000 per year. Given those circumstances, petitioner’s proof failed to establish an unanticipated and unreasonable change of circumstances to support an upward modification of child support *(see, Matter of Boden v Boden,*42 NY2d 210, 213). (Appeal from Order of Erie County Family Court, O’Donnell, J.—Support.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Balio, Lawton and Lowery, JJ.
Exhibit 21

                               SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

                    All-Comm Acquisition Corporation*       (100%)
                    All-Comm Holdings, Inc*                 (100%)
                    Alliance Media Corporation              (100%)
                    MSGi Direct - New York, Inc.            (100%)
                    MSGi Direct, Inc.                       (100%)
                    MSGi Direct - Philadelphia, Inc.        (100%)
                    Media Marketplace Media Division**      (100%)
                    MSGi Direct - SKA, Inc.                 (100%)
                    MSGi Direct - SKLB, Inc.                (100%)
                    MSGi Direct - International, Inc.       (100%)
                    MSGi Direct - Boston, Inc.              (100%)
                    WiredEmpire.com Corp.                   ( 87%)
                    The Coolidge Company, Inc.              (100%)
                    Grizzard Communications Group, Inc.     (100%)

                    * Dissolved in June 1997
                    **Dissolved in August 1998
EXHIBIT 11


                                           GOODY'S FAMILY CLOTHING, INC.


                                  STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>

                                                              Thirteen                        Twenty-six
                                                            Weeks Ended                      Weeks Ended
                                                      July 31,       August 1,        July 31,         August 1,
                                                       1999            1998            1999              1998
                                                    ------------  --------------    -------------   --------------
<S>                                                     <C>             <C>              <C>              <C>

Net earnings for the period                         $ 9,707,000    $ 8,658,000       $  17,590,000  $ 16,426,000
                                                     ==========     ==========       =============  ============


Weighted average common shares
   outstanding - Basic                               33,318,000      33,538,000      33,325,000        33,384,000

Common equivalent shares for outstanding stock
options                                                 582,000       1,451,000         584,000         1,452,000
                                                     ------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted average common shares
  outstanding - Diluted                              33,900,000      34,989,000      33,909,000        34,836,000
                                                     ============================================================


Earnings per common share
  Basic                                                  $ 0.29       $ 0.26          $ 0.53           $ 0.49
                                                     ============================================================
  Diluted                                                $ 0.29       $ 0.25          $ 0.52           $ 0.47
                                                     ============================================================



</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.1**
**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Robert M. Goodfriend, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Goody’s FamilyClothing, Inc. (the “registrant”); 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting         By:                                       /s/ ROBERT M. GOODFRIEND            Robert M. Goodfriend    *Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer*   
November 17, 2004
# C_2016203EN.01003501.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 203/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 203/35

---

Article 86

Special fissile materials shall be the property of the Community.

The Community's right of ownership shall extend to all special fissile materials which are produced or imported by a Member State, a person or an undertaking and are subject to the safeguards provided for in Chapter 7.

---