alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 20, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-30704 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSIE E. SINEGAL, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 6:00-CR-60006

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The district court revoked Josie E. Sinegal’s probation and sentenced her to serve four years in prison. Sinegal appeals her sentence. She argues that her sentence is unreasonable because it exceeded the advisory guideline range, because her violations did not warrant such a harsh sentence, and because the district court failed to provide sufficient reasons for the sentence. She requests that this court vacate her sentence and remand the case for resentencing.2

We have yet to decide whether revocation sentences imposed following the release of United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), should be reviewed under the reasonableness standard or the plainly unreasonable standard. See United States v. Hinson , 429 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 2005), cert . denied , 126 S. Ct. 1804 (2006). Nevertheless, resolution of this issue is not needed to dispose of this appeal because Sinegal has not shown that she should prevail under either standard. See id. Sinegal ’ s sentence exceeded the recommended guidelines sentence but not the pertinent statutory maximum sentence. Further, a review of the record demonstrates that the district court considered the relevant sentencing factors. See United States v. Smith , 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2006). Consequently, the sentence was neither unreasonable nor plainly unreasonable , and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
```
 
 
MSCI EAFE MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                                    Code-244041
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 10/23/12                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:       63,689
COMMITMENTS
   7,343    2,938        0   51,917   58,120   59,260   61,058    4,429    2,631

CHANGES FROM 10/16/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      1,879)
     772     -873        0    1,066    3,215    1,838    2,342       41     -463

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    11.5      4.6      0.0     81.5     91.3     93.0     95.9      7.0      4.1

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       70)
       9        4        0       36       32       45       36
 
 
MSCI EMERGING MKTS MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                           Code-244042
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 10/23/12                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:      113,679
COMMITMENTS
  23,679   19,643      724   76,885   89,850  101,288  110,217   12,391    3,462

CHANGES FROM 10/16/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -1,173)
   1,620     -606       -7   -3,052      763   -1,439      150      266   -1,323

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    20.8     17.3      0.6     67.6     79.0     89.1     97.0     10.9      3.0

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      122)
      38       11        4       51       38       90       52
```

----

Updated October 26, 2012
**EXHIBIT 32.02**

 

**SECTION1350 CERTIFICATION**

 

**In connection with this annual report of ML PrincipalProtection L.P. ( the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year endedDecember 31, 2005 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (this “Report”), I, Michael L. Pungello, Vice President, Chief FinancialOfficer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:**

 

1. This Report containingthe financial statements fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The information contained in this Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

Date: March 31, 2006

 
| By                                        | /s/ MICHAEL L. PUNGELLO |   |
|-------------------------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
| Michael L. Pungello                       |
| Vice President, Chief Financial Officer   |
| and Treasurer                             |
| (Principal Financial and Accounting Offi) |

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

SYMBOLOGY INNOVATIONS, LLC,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

KEURIG DR. PEPPER INC., 

Defendant. 

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00249-JRG

ORDER

Before the Court is the Stipulated Motion for Dismissal (the “Stipulation”) filed by 

Defendant Keurig Dr. Pepper, Inc. (“Keurig”) and Plaintiff Symbology Innovations, LLC 

(“Symbology”) (collectively, the “Parties”). (Dkt. No. 30). In the Stipulation, the Parties stipulate

to dismissal of Symbology’s claims against Keurig with prejudice and Keurig’s counterclaims 

against Symbology without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). 

(Id. at 1).

Having considered the Stipulation, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that 

Symbology’s claims against Keurig in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE. The Court further ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that Keurig’s 

counterclaims against Symbology in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE. Each party shall bear its own costs and fees. All pending requests for relief in the 

above-captioned case not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court 

is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned case as no parties or claims remain.

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 31 Filed 11/21/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 899
2

____________________________________

RODNEY GILSTRAP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE So ORDERED and SIGNED this 21st day of November, 2023.

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 31 Filed 11/21/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 900
Alexander Manjanja CHANTHUNYA, petitioner, v. MARYLAND ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION.

No. 18-5843.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 10, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland denied.
- 1 -

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP

JURY DEMANDED

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO AMEND DEADLINES

Plaintiff Headwater Research LLC (“Plaintiff”) respectfully files this Unopposed Motion 

to Amend Deadlines to briefly extend the deadlines to (1) comply with P.R. 3-1 and 3-2 from 

September 14, 2023, up to and including September 28, 2023, and (2) comply with P.R. 3-3, 3-4, 

and the Standing Order Regarding Subject-Matter Eligibility Contentions from November 9, 2023, 

up to and including November 23, 2023. 

No other deadlines will be affected by this amendment. Plaintiff does not file this Motion 

for the purposes of delay, but rather so that justice may be done. Counsel for Defendants have met 

and conferred with counsel for Plaintiff, and do not oppose this relief. 

Accordingly, the Parties respectfully request that the Court grant this Unopposed Motion 

to amend the deadlines in the Court’s Order setting a scheduling conference (Dkt. 41) as follows: 

Original Date Amended Date Event

September 14, 2023 September 28, 2023 Comply with P.R. 3-1 & 3-2 (Infringement 

Contentions)

November 9, 2023 November 23, 2023 Comply with P.R. 3-3 & 3-4 (Invalidity 

Contentions) and Comply with Standing Order 

Regarding Subject-Matter Eligibility Contentions

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 46 Filed 09/27/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 1822
- 2 -

Date: September 27, 2023 /s/ Marc Fenster

Marc Fenster

CA State Bar No. 181067

Reza Mirzaie

CA State Bar No. 246953

Brian Ledahl

CA State Bar No. 186579

Ben Wang

CA State Bar No. 228712

Paul Kroeger

CA State Bar No. 229074

Neil A. Rubin

CA State Bar No. 250761

Kristopher Davis

CA State Bar No. 329627

James S. Tsuei

CA State Bar No. 285530

Philip Wang

CA State Bar No. 262239

Amy Hayden

CA State Bar No. 287026

James Milkey

CA State Bar No. 281283

Jason M. Wietholter

CA State Bar No. 337139

RUSS AUGUST & KABAT

12424 Wilshire Blvd. 12th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90025

Telephone: 310-826-7474

rak_headwater@raklaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF,

Headwater Research LLC

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 46 Filed 09/27/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 1823
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was filed electronically. I further 

certify that all counsel of record were served a complete and accurate copy of the document via 

email on this day.

Dated: September 27, 2023 /s/ Marc Fenster

Marc Fenster

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 46 Filed 09/27/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 1824
4

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE 

The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel for Defendants met and conferred with 

counsel for Plaintiff in accordance with Local Rule CV-7(h). The Parties are jointly seeking the 

relief sought in this Motion. 

/s/ Marc Fenster

Marc Fenster

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 46 Filed 09/27/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 1825
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 03/27/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      474,685
COMMITMENTS
  46,400   34,420  114,337  292,365  307,847  453,101  456,604   21,584   18,081

CHANGES FROM 03/20/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     17,051)
    -118    1,752      414   18,289   17,241   18,586   19,407   -1,534   -2,356

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
     9.8      7.3     24.1     61.6     64.9     95.5     96.2      4.5      3.8

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      128)
      29       26       45       65       59      120      107
```

----

Updated March 30, 2012
ASSIGNMENT OF OVERRIDING ROYALTY
INTEREST


KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:


THAT, the undersigned,
OSAGE EXPLORATION & DEVELOPMENT, INC., 2445 Fifth Avenue, Suite 310, San Diego, California 92101, hereinafter referred to as
“Grantor”, for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and full sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant, assign, transfer, set over and convey unto BOOTHBAY
ROYALTY CO., 6608 N. Western Avenue, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73116, hereinafter referred to as “Grantee,” as an overriding
royalty interest, an undivided One Point Five Percent (1.5%) (with respect to the leases and lands described on Exhibit “A,”
attached to and made and a part hereof) and an undivided One Point Seven One Four Three Percent (1.7143%) (with respect to the
leases and lands described on Exhibit “B,” attached to and made a part hereof) of all oil, gas, condensate and other
hydrocarbon minerals produced, saved and sold from the lands described in Exhibits “A” and “B” (the “Land”),
to the extent attributable to the oil and gas leases described in said Exhibits and to any other oil and gas leases now owned (whether
or not described in said Exhibits) or hereafter acquired by Grantor covering the Land or any part thereof (collectively, the “Leases”),
proportionately reduced to the Grantor’s gross working interest in and under each such Lease, with such assignment and transfer
to be effective on and from the date of first production from each of the Leases. This Assignment of Overriding Royalty Interest
shall apply to any and all extensions, substitutions, top leases, replacements and/or renewals of any one or more of the Leases.






    	Page1



    	 	



    
 


Said overriding
royalty interest shall be free and clear of all costs of drilling, equipping, testing, completing, and operating any well drilled
on the Leases or the Land but shall bear its proportionate share of all gross production, severance and excise taxes properly assessable
thereof.


For the same
consideration, Grantor covenants with Grantee, its successors and assigns, that Grantor is the lawful owner of the Leases described
in Exhibits “A” and “B,” that said Leases are valid and subsisting leases on the lands covered thereby,
and that all rentals and royalties due under said Leases have been paid and all conditions necessary to keep same in full force
and effect have been duly performed.






    	Page2



    	 	



    
 


IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, Grantor has caused this Assignment to be executed this 17th day of April, 2012.


OSAGE EXPLORATION & DEVELOPMENT, INC.


By:


____________, President


ACKNOWLEDGMENT


STATE OF OKLAHOMA)


) ss:


COUNTY
OF OKLAHOMA)


This instrument was acknowledged before me
this 17th day of April, 2012, by _________________ as President of Osage Exploration & Development, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, on behalf of the corporation.


 





Notary Public


My Commission Expires:


___________________
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON



### O RDER TO 

### F ILE 

### C OMPLETE 

### C LERK 

### ’ S 

### R ECORD

Appellate case name: Ralph O. Douglas v. Joyce Booker Appellate case number: 01

- 11

- 00 0 2 6

- CV

Trial court: 129th District Court of Harris County, Texas

Trial court case number: 2005

- 80795

On January 10, 2012, the Court issued an order allowing appellant to proceed w ithout advance payment of costs and ordered the District Clerk to file the clerk’s record within 30 days.

In the clerk ’s record filed with the Court on April 11, 2012, the caption indicates this is the fourth clerk’s record prepared for this case, and the index lists a number of documents submitted in

pre viously filed clerk’s records. Many of the documents listed as prev iously submitted were filed in clerk’s records prepared for appellate case number 01

- 06

- 01069

- CV, and the records on that appeal are no longer available. One other clerk’s record, the clerk’s record on indigence, has been filed with the Court and only con tains those documents relevant to the indigence portion of this case. The clerk’s record on this appeal is incomplete.

On May 10, 2012, the Clerk of this Court notified the District Clerk of the deficiencies in

the clerk’s record in this case and directe d the District Clerk to file the complete clerk’s record by May 20, 2012. The District Clerk did not respond to the notice.

T he trial court clerk is responsible for preparing, certifying, and timely filing the clerk’s
record when, as here, a notice of ap peal has been filed and appellant is entitled to proceed without paying the fee for the record. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 35.3(a).

Accordingly, t he District Clerk is ORDERED to file the complete clerk’s record within 10 days of the date of this order

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 34.5(a), (c), 35.3(c).

Judge = s signature: /s/ Justice Terry Jennings

 Acting individually Q Acting for the Court

Date: June 29, 2012
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

LOWELL BAISDEN,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 15

- 15023

D.C. No. 1:06

- cv

- 01368

- AWI

- MJS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 26, 2017 **

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Lowell Baisden appeal s pro se from the district co urt’s judgment modifying

a permanent injunction under 26 U.S.C. § 7408 barring Baisden from promoting an

abusive tax scheme . We have jurisdiction und er 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo the district court’s legal conclusions, for clear error its factua l findings, and

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 30 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, C LERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 15023

for an abuse of discretion its decision to grant a permanent injunction and the

scope of the injunction

. Columbia Pictures Indus. , Inc. v. Fung , 710 F.3d 1020,

1030 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by issuing the permanent

injunction , as modified, because the injunction “state[s] its terms specifically” and

“describe[s] in reasonable detail . . . the act or acts restrained

. ” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 65(d)(1) ; U

nited States v. Kapp , 564 F.3d 1103, 1114 (9th Cir. 2009) (upholding

against a vagueness and overbreadth challenge an injunction prohibiting a

defendant from preparing tax returns claiming a specified tax deduction).

We reject as meritless Baisden’s conten tion s that the injunction punishes

past conduct and violates his First Amendment rights. See United States v. Estate

Pres. Servs. , 202 F.3d 1093, 1106 (9th Cir. 2000) (upholding against a First

Amendment challenge a 26 U.S.C. § 7408 injunction because it “proscribes only

fraudulent conduct” and defendants “may continue to publish legitimate tax

planning advice ” ).

AFFIRMED.
Austin GATES, petitioner, v. Hassan KHOKHAR, et al.

No. 18-511.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Masoud BAMDAD, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-427.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.2


           CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF FRIEDMAN'S INC.
                       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 of Friedman's Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 28, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Victor M. Suglia,
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      1)    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


/s/ Victor M. Suglia
----------------------------
Victor M. Suglia
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
August 8, 2003



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Friedman's Inc. and will be
retained by Friedman's Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
ADVANCE TECHNOLOGIES INC.


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                            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 Annual Report of Advance Technologies Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Gary E. Ball, President and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. * 1350, as adopted pursuant to * 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the best of my knowledge:

     (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
           15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


/s/ GARY E. BALL
_____________________________________
Gary E. Ball
President and Director
December 30, 2002
Lennie WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, et al.

No. 18-5099.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 19, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC,

 Plaintiff, 

v.

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC.,

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a 

VERIZON WIRELESS, and VERIZON 

CORPORATE SERVICES GROUP, 

INC., 

 Defendants.

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00352-JRG-RSP

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants and Counterclaim-Plaintiffs Cellco Partnership, d/b/a 

Verizon Wireless and Verizon Corporate Services Group, Inc.’s (collectively, “Verizon”)

Unopposed Motion to Seal Documents. Dkt. No. 31. After due consideration, and in light of its 

unopposed nature, the Court GRANTS the motion. It is therefore

ORDERED that Verizon’s Answer (Dkt. No. 32) may be filed under seal. 

Case 2:23-cv-00352-JRG-RSP Document 34 Filed 10/12/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 544
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

      We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Form S-8 No. 33-80370), (Form S-8 No. 33-92252), (Form S-8 No.
333-29195) and (Form S-8 No. 333-39049), pertaining to the Stock Option Plan of
Norton McNaughton, Inc. and the Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Norton
McNaughton, Inc., the Executive Stock Option Plan of Norton McNaughton, Inc. and
the Senior Executive Bonus Plan of ME Acquisition Corp., of our report dated
January 30, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Norton McNaughton, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended November 1, 1997.

                                                ERNST & YOUNG LLP

New York, New York
February 9, 1998