alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1305

To clarify the tariff treatment of certain footwear.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 29 (legislative day, JUNE 30), 1993

Mr. D’AMATO introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To clarify the tariff treatment of certain footwear.

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

3 SECTION 1. TARIFF TREATMENT OF CERTAIN FOOTWEAR.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 514 of

5 the Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision of law, upon

6 proper request filed with the appropriate customs officer

7 within 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act,

8 any entry—

9 (1) that was made after December 31, 1988,

10 and before July 1, 1991;

11 (2) that consisted of articles of footwear that,

12 if entered on July 1, 1991, would have been classi-
2

•S 1305 IS

1 fied under subheading 9905.64.10 of the Har2 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States; and

3 (3) with respect to which there would have been

4 a lesser duty if the applicable rate applied to such

5 entry;

6 shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though the applicable

7 rate applied to such entry.

8 (b) APPLICABLE RATE.—For purposes of subsection

9 (a), the term ‘‘applicable rate’’ means—

10 (1) 4.7% ad valorem if the entry was made

11 after December 31, 1988, and before January 1,

12 1990;

13 (2) 4.2% ad valorem if the entry was made

14 after December 31, 1989, and before January 1,

15 1991; and

16 (3) 3.7% ad valorem if the entry was made

17 after December 31, 1990, and before July 1, 1991.

18 (c) ENTRY DEFINED.—For purposes of this section,

19 the term ‘‘entry’’ includes a withdrawal from warehouse

20 for consumption.

Æ
Exhibit 12.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 302(a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Shlomi Hagai, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Mer Telemanagement
Solutions Ltd.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

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

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13(a)-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and 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 the registrant, including its consolidated
Subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b) [Paragraph omitted
pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986] (c) Evaluated the
effectiveness of the registrant'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 (d) Disclosed in this report any change in
the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control 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 financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): (a) All significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrant'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 the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting.

Date: March 31, 2006

/s/Shlomi Hagai*
----------------
Shlomi Hagai
Chief Financial Officer

* The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Sean Ryan Bree, * From the 220th District Court

 of Comanche County

Trial Court No. CR-03933.

Vs. No. 11-16-00217-CR * July 19, 2018

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, J.

(Panel consists of: Willson, J.,

Bailey, J., and Wright, S.C.J., 

sitting by assignment)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is error 

in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, we modify 

the judgment to reflect that the amount of court costs is reduced from $278 to $249. As 

modified, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
No. 12-7291.

#### Bell *v.*United States.

C. A. 10th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
Exhibit 10.2

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

                        MER Telemanagement Solutions Ltd.
                     22 Zarhin st., Ra'anana, 43662, Israel.

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Files No. 333-12014 and No. 333-123321) of Mer
Telemanagement Solutions Ltd. of our report dated March 3, 2005, relating to the
financial statements of Jusan, S.A., which appears in this Form 20-F.

BDO Audiberia

/s/BDO Audiberia
----------------------
Peter D. Cook
Partner

Madrid, Spain, June 27, 2005
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Natrol, Inc.(the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2005 (the “Report”), theundersigned, in the capacity and on the date listed below, hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

This Certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K promulgated under the Securities Act of1933, as amended, and shall not be deemed part of the Report or “filed” for anypurpose whatsoever, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference into anyfiling under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

 

 
| Date: May 16, 2005 |                                                         |
|-------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|                    |   */s/  Elliott Balbert*                           | * * |
|                    |   Elliott Balbert                                  |
|                    |   President, Chief Executive  Officer and Chairman |
|                    |   (Principal Executive Officer)                    |

 

----
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1561

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a charitable contribution deduction for certain expenses incurred by whaling captains in

support of Native Alaskan subsistence whaling.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 18 (legislative day, OCTOBER 13), 1993

Mr. STEVENS (for himself and Mr. MURKOWSKI) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a

charitable contribution deduction for certain expenses incurred by whaling captains in support of Native Alaskan

subsistence whaling.

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

3 SECTION 1. CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTION DEDUCTION FOR

4 CERTAIN EXPENSES INCURRED IN SUPPORT

5 OF NATIVE ALASKAN SUBSISTENCE WHAL6 ING.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 170 of the Internal Reve8 nue Code of 1986 (relating to charitable, etc., contribu-
2

•S 1561 IS

1 tions and gifts) is amended by redesignating subsection

2 (m) as subsection (n) and by inserting after subsection

3 (l) the following new subsection:

4 ‘‘(m) EXPENSES PAID BY CERTAIN WHALING CAP5 TAINS IN SUPPORT OF NATIVE ALASKAN SUBSISTENCE

6 WHALING.—

7 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of an individual

8 who is recognized by the Alaska Eskimo Whaling

9 Commission as a whaling captain charged with the

10 responsibility of maintaining and carrying out sanc11 tioned whaling activities and who engages in such

12 activities during the taxable year, the amount de13 scribed in paragraph (2) (to the extent such amount

14 does not exceed $7,500 for the taxable year) shall be

15 treated for purposes of this section as a charitable

16 contribution.

17 ‘‘(2) AMOUNT DESCRIBED.—The amount de18 scribed in this paragraph is the aggregate of the rea19 sonable and necessary whaling expenses paid by the

20 taxpayer during the taxable year in carrying out

21 sanctioned whaling activities. For purposes of the

22 preceding sentence, the term ‘whaling expenses’ in23 cludes expenses for—
3

•S 1561 IS

1 ‘‘(A) the acquisition and maintenance of

2 whaling boats, weapons, and gear used in sanc3 tioned whaling activities,

4 ‘‘(B) the supplying of food for the crew

5 and other provisions for carrying out such ac6 tivities, and

7 ‘‘(C) storage and distribution of the catch

8 from such activities.

9 ‘‘(3) SANCTIONED WHALING ACTIVITIES.—For

10 purposes of this subsection, the term ‘sanctioned

11 whaling activities’ means subsistence bowhead whale

12 hunting activities conducted pursuant to the man13 agement plan of the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Com14 mission.’’.

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

16 subsection (a) shall apply to all taxable years beginning

17 before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
**EXHIBIT 10.6**

**MENTOR CORPORATION**

**WRITTEN DESCRIPTIONOF CAR ALLOWANCE PLAN**

POLICY

A.        The Company has the option topurchase or lease cars for selected employees.

B.         Anemployee who is entitled to a Company Car has the option to receive a carallowance in lieu of a Company owned or leased car.   A 4-door sedan or a SportUtility Vehicle ("SUV") is considered an acceptable car underthis program.  Two seat cars or convertibles are not acceptable.

C.        Thefollowing are the monthly allowed expenses either as a car allowance or amonthly lease payment:

1.         Chairman,President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer, or Executive VicePresident - $1250 per month

2.         SeniorVice Presidents - $1000 per month

3.         ExecutiveOfficers and Other Designated Executives reporting directly to the CEO and/orhis Designee(s) - $800 per month

4.         Other Eligible Employees - $600-$833 per month
No. 12-6830.

#### Junious *v.*Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 12-6680.

#### Bonillas *v.*Arizona.

Ct. App. Ariz. Certio-rari denied.
No. 12-7323.

#### Vasquez Escalante *v.*Watson, Warden.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 13, 2023.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 13, 2023

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A24D0110. LORI ELIZABETH COPELAND v. JERRY COPELAND, JR.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

SUCV2021000012
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 24

- 00191

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 360th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 360

- 694947

- 21
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Birdwell and Walker, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell 

### I N THE 

### I NTEREST OF 

### J.H. AND 

### E.H., C HILDREN2 MEMORANDUM OPINION The trial court terminated Appellant Mother’s parental rights to her children J.H. and E.H

. based on its findings on endangerment, on her failure to comply with
court order s , on her controlled

- substance use in a manner that endangered the children’s health or safety, and on the children’s best interests. 1 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (P), (2). Mother’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief 2 in which she concludes that, after a thorough review of the appellate record, the appeal is frivolous.
See In re K.W. , No. 02

- 23

- 00082

- CV, 2023 WL 4289613, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth June 30, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.). Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and showing why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. We provided Mother the opportunity to obtain a copy of the appellate record and to file a pro se response, but she has not done so. T he Department of Family and
Protective Services has agreed with Mother’s counsel that the appeal is frivolous.
When an Anders brief is filed, we must independently examine the appellate record to determine if any arguable grounds for appeal exist. In re C.J. , No. 02

- 18

-

1 The trial court terminated the children’s father’s parental rights in 2022.

2 Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967); see In re K.M. , 98 S.W.3d 774, 776

– 77 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2003, no pet.) (holding Anders procedures apply in termination

- of

- parental

- rights cases), disp. on merits , No. 02

- 01

- 00349

- CV, 2003 WL 2006583 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth May 1, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.).3 00219

- CV, 2018 WL 4496240, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Sept. 20, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.). Having carefully reviewed counsel’s brief and the appellate record, we agree with counsel that Mother’s appeal is without merit. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); In re D.D. , 279 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2009, pet. denied). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order terminating the parent

– child relationship between Mother and the children. 3 /s/ Wade Birdwell
Wade Birdwell Justice
Delivered: August 22, 2024

3 Mother’s counsel remains appointed through proceedings in the Texas Supreme Court unless otherwise relieved. See In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (order); see also Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.016(2)(C).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          33,770
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  527,077
<ALLOWANCES>                                    15,749
<INVENTORY>                                    366,400
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               987,672
<PP&E>                                       1,736,448
<DEPRECIATION>                                 842,323
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,437,432
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          611,153
<BONDS>                                        479,100
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       146,438
<OTHER-SE>                                     492,352
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,437,432
<SALES>                                      1,607,010
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,607,010
<CGS>                                        1,173,083
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,173,083
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,573
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,142
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                136,222
<INCOME-TAX>                                    51,872
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             82,283
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    82,283
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.45
        

</TABLE>
Order filed January 12 , 2023

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 19

- 00861

- CV

____________ IN RE FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC. , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS On Appeal from the 270th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017

- 49530



### ORDER
On October 29, 2019, relator FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asked this court to compel the Honorable Dedra Davis, presiding judge of the 270 th District Court of Harris County, to vacate her October 28, 2019 order denying FedEx’s motions to quash subpoenas and for prote ctive orders. We conditionally granted FedEx’s petition on May 28, 2020

. Real party in interest Zach Brown filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Texas Supreme Court, seeking relief from this court’s ruling. On September 9, 2022, the Supreme Cour t granted Brown’s petition in part and directed this court to vacate our order granting relief quashing brown’s trial subpoena and address whether Rule176 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure applies in this case.

On January 6, 2023, the parties advis ed this court that they have reached a settlement of all claims and requested that we abate this case so that they may finalize the settlement. We grant the motion.
The original proceeding is abated for a period of thirty d ays from the date of this order, at which time the parties are directed to advise the court of the status of
the settlement. The original proceeding is treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s active docket. The original proceeding will be reinstated on this court’s active docket when the parties file a motion to dismiss the original proceeding or other dispositive motion. The c ourt also will consider an appropriate
motion to reinstate th e original proceeding, or the court may reinstate th e original proceeding on its own motion

.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Wise and Hassan.
No. 12-7343.

#### Pizzino *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
|                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                          
|View History:                                                           
|                                                                        
|Ogilby, CA Natural Gas Pipeline Imports From Mexico (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                        
|                                                                        
|Ogilby, CA Natural Gas Pipeline Imports From Mexico (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 1,345  | 1,953 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 22,503 | 454    | 0      | 23     | 0      | 0      | 169    | 328    | 310    | 321   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 288    | 694    | 85     |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
#### Trevor MCCARTHY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-1008

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 3, 2017

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hills-borough County; William Fuente, Judge.

Affirmed.
JOSB FY 2011 EX 10.6(f)






Exhibit 10.6(f)




TENTH AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


THIS TENTH AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”) is made as of the 27th day of March, 2012 to that certain AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, dated as of May 15, 2002, (as previously amended, the “Employment Agreement”), by and between CHARLES D. FRAZER (“Employee”) and JOS. A. BANK CLOTHIERS, INC. (“Employer”).     


FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, Employer and Employee, being the sole parties to the Employment Agreement, hereby amend the Employment Agreement and agree that, subject to earlier termination as otherwise set forth in the Employment Agreement, the last day of the Employment Period shall be February 1, 2014.


Except as specifically amended hereby, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect according to its terms. To the extent of any conflict between the terms of this Amendment and the terms of the remainder of the Employment Agreement, the terms of this Amendment shall control and prevail. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have those respective meanings attributed to them in the Employment Agreement. This Amendment shall hereafter be deemed a part of the Employment Agreement for all purposes.


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.




JOS. A. BANK CLOTHIERS, INC.


	
				
	By:
	/s/ R. NEAL BLACK
	 
	/s/ CHARLES D. FRAZER

	 
	R. Neal Black,
President-Chief Executive Officer
	 
	CHARLES D. FRAZER