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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2228 

To posthumously advance Lieutenant Colonel Richard E. Cole, United States 

Air Force, to colonel on the retired list. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 23, 2019 

Mr. PORTMAN (for himself, Mr. BROWN, Mr. COTTON, Mr. CORNYN, and Mr. 

CRUZ) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To posthumously advance Lieutenant Colonel Richard E. 

Cole, United States Air Force, to colonel on the retired 

list. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS; PURPOSE. 

4 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds as follows: 

5 (1) Lieutenant Colonel Richard E. Cole, United 

6 States Air Force (retired), was born on September 

7 7, 1915, in Dayton, Ohio. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2228 IS

1 (2) On November 22, 1940, Lieutenant Colonel 

2 Cole enlisted as an aviation cadet in Lubbock, 

3 Texas. 

4 (3) In July 1941, Lieutenant Colonel Cole was 

5 commissioned as a second lieutenant and rated as a 

6 pilot. 

7 (4) Lieutenant Colonel Cole was one of the air8 men who took part in the Doolittle Raid on Japan 

9 in April 1942, serving as co-pilot to then Lieutenant 

10 Colonel James (Jimmy) Doolittle. 

11 (5) After the Doolittle Raid, Lieutenant Colonel 

12 Cole remained in China until June 1943. 

13 (6) Lieutenant Colonel Cole served again in the 

14 China-Burma-India Theater from October 1943 to 

15 June 1944. 

16 (7) Lieutenant Colonel Cole later served as Op17 erations Advisor to the Venezuelan Air Force from 

18 1959 to 1962. 

19 (8) Lieutenant Colonel Cole retired from the 

20 Air Force in 1966. 

21 (9) On September 19, 2016, the B–21 bomber 

22 developed by Northrop Grumman was formally 

23 named ‘‘Raider’’ in honor of the Doolittle Raiders. 

24 (10) Lieutenant Colonel Cole died on April 9, 

25 2019, at 103 years of age. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2228 IS

1 (b) PURPOSES.—The purpose of this Act are as fol2 lows: 

3 (1) To recognize the accomplishments, sac4 rifices, and legacy of Lieutenant Colonel Richard E. 

5 Cole, United States Air Force (retired). 

6 (2) To encourage citizens of the United States 

7 to remember the legacy of Lieutenant Colonel Cole 

8 and the legacy of all the Doolittle Raiders. 

9 SEC. 2. POSTHUMOUS ADVANCEMENT OF LIEUTENANT 

10 COLONEL RICHARD E. COLE, UNITED STATES 

11 AIR FORCE, ON THE RETIRED LIST. 

12 (a) ADVANCEMENT.—Lieutenant Colonel Richard E. 

13 Cole, United States Air Force (retired), is advanced to the 

14 rank of colonel on the retired list of the Air Force. 

15 (b) ADDITIONAL BENEFITS NOT TO ACCRUE.—The 

16 advancement of Richard E. Cole on the retired list of the 

17 Air Force under subsection (a) shall not affect the retired 

18 pay or other benefits from the United States to which 

19 Richard E. Cole would have been entitled based upon his 

20 military service or affect any benefits to which any other 

21 person may become entitled based on his military service. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

CORY T. PERRY,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:10cv281/MCR/EMT

WALTER McNEIL, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the court upon referral from the clerk. Plaintiff commenced this action

by filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). Leave to proceed in forma

pauperis has been granted (Doc. 8).

On April 21, 2011, this court entered an order (Doc. 56) directing Plaintiff to file an amended

complaint within thirty (30) days. Plaintiff failed to respond to the order; therefore, on May 31,

2011, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause, within twenty-one (21) days, why

this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the court (Doc. 58). The

time for compliance with the show cause order has now elapsed with no response from Plaintiff.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with an

order of the court.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 29th day of June 2011.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00281-MCR-EMT Document 59 Filed 06/29/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within

fourteen (14) days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear

on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only. A copy of objections shall be

served upon all other parties. Failure to object may limit the scope of appellate review of

factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir.

1988).

Case No: 3:10cv281/MCR/EMT

Case 3:10-cv-00281-MCR-EMT Document 59 Filed 06/29/11 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                              211,114 
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                    20,802,598
<ALLOWANCES>                        647,247
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 22,021,030
<PP&E>                          133,540,192
<DEPRECIATION>                   60,728,386
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  124,239,186
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            13,308,248
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                             66,734
<OTHER-SE>                       31,328,663
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    124,239,186
<SALES>                          32,141,140
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 32,141,140
<CGS>                            22,365,635
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    22,365,635
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  5,017,591
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  530,147
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   4,227,767
<INCOME-TAX>                      1,729,309
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               2,498,458
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                      2,498,458
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          0.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.42
        

</TABLE>
Case 1:06-cv-14979-AKH Document 2 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE v. BUMGARNER

No. 227 PC.

No. 82 (Fall Term).

Case below: 42 N.C. App. 71.

Petition by Attorney General for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 20 July 1979.
#### STATE v. DANIEL LONNIE BRITT.

(Filed 28 April, 1965.)

Appeal by defendant from *Shaw, J.,*December, 1964 Session, RowaN Superior Court.

This criminal prosecution was based on a two-count bill of indictment charging that on May 26, 1964, the defendant feloniously broke and entered a certain building occupied by Paul Yates for the purpose of committing the crime of larceny. The second count charged the larceny of two pistols and Ten Dollars in United States currency, of the total value of One Hundred Dollars.

The evidence disclosed the building was broken into and the pistols and the money were taken from the cash register on the night of May 26, 1964. The defendant was at the building at closing time, around ten o’clock at night. He admitted to Mr. Richardson, SBI Agent, that he had gone into the building, taken some money and the pistols which he had pawned in Charlotte for $10.00. He gave the agent the address of the pawn shop where the pistols were recovered.

The defendant testified, denying that he took the pistols or the money from the cash register. He claimed he was drinking and “I was a quarter of a mile away . . . when I realized I had the pistols . . . Both of them were in one pocket. I took them on home . . . and the next morning I went to Charlotte and pawned them ... I do not know how they got in my pocket.”

The jury returned a verdict of guilty. From a prison sentence of two and one-half to five years, the defendant appealed.

*T.. W. Bruton, Attorney General, Ralph Moody, Deputy Attorney General for the State.*

*Graham, M. Carlton for defendant appellant.*

PeR Cueiam.

Defendant’s counsel took a number of exceptions to the charge. However, in view of the defendant’s own evidence, the charge is more favorable to him than he had any right to expect. He admitted taking the pistols to a Charlotte loan office. His denial was that he didn’t steal them from the cash register. A new trial, under the circumstances, is not warranted.

No error.
# CA2009292EN.01000801.xml

| 2.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 292/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 292/8

---

RESERVE LIST
   (1)

RESERVE LIST

1

OPEN COMPETITION EPSO/AD/138/08

OPEN COMPETITION

MALTESE-LANGUAGE (MT)

MALTESE-LANGUAGE

LAWYER-LINGUISTS (AD 7)

LAWYER-LINGUISTS

(2009/C 292 A/04)

‘COURT OF JUSTICE’ CHANNEL

| SACCO | Donna Marie |
| --- | --- |
| SHEIKH | Rashida |

SACCO

Donna Marie

SHEIKH

Rashida

‘PARLIAMENT, COUNCIL’ CHANNEL

Merit Group 1

| ATTARD | Christian |
| --- | --- |
| CAUSON | Ian |
| PORTELLI | Glorienne |

ATTARD

Christian

CAUSON

Ian

PORTELLI

Glorienne

Merit Group 2

| FILLETTI | Tiziana |
| --- | --- |
| GRECH | Ino Mario |
| MALLIA | Roberta |
| ZAMMIT | Christian |

FILLETTI

Tiziana

GRECH

Ino Mario

MALLIA

Roberta

ZAMMIT

Christian

Merit Group 3

| ELLUL | Charisse |
| --- | --- |

ELLUL

Charisse

The reserve list will be valid until 31 December 2010 and may be extended.

31 December 2010

---

(1)  A successful candidate may explicitly request her/his name not be published.

1

---
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

KENNETH W. JONES,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv233/RV/EMT

JOHN M. MORING, 

Defendant.

__________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the court upon referral from the clerk. Plaintiff commenced this action

by filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). Plaintiff subsequently filed

amended complaints (Docs. 20, 36). On March 17, 2011, this court entered an order giving Plaintiff

thirty (30) days in which to file a third amended complaint (Doc. 38). Plaintiff failed to respond to

the order; therefore, on April 26, 2011, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause,

within twenty-one (21) days, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with an

order of the court (Doc. 41). The time for compliance with the show cause order has now elapsed,

and Plaintiff has not filed a third amended complaint.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with an

order of the court.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 27th day of May 2011.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00233-RV-EMT Document 42 Filed 05/27/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within

fourteen (14) days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear

on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only. A copy of objections shall be

served upon all other parties. Failure to object may limit the scope of appellate review of

factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir.

1988).

Case No: 3:10cv233/RV/EMT

Case 3:10-cv-00233-RV-EMT Document 42 Filed 05/27/11 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

TERESA D. HUGHES, 

Plaintiff,

vs. 1:10-cv-154-MMP-GRJ

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

 /

SCHEDULING ORDER

This Social Security appeal came on for consideration pursuant to an order of

reference to the United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(3) and Local

Rule 72.2(D). The Court has reviewed the Answer filed by the Commissioner and,

accordingly, it is:

ORDERED that counsel shall confer in person or by telephone to discuss

whether the parties consent to the United States Magistrate Judge conducting all further

proceedings in this case, including entry of final judgment, with appeal to the United

States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. If the parties consent to the United

States Magistrate Judge conducting all further proceedings, the parties shall file a

Consent Form. Absent consent, the United States Magistrate Judge will prepare a

report and recommendation to the United States District Judge. It is:

FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before the following dates, the parties shall file

and serve a brief setting forth concisely the basis for the affirmance or reversal of the
Page 2 of 2

final decision of the Commissioner, and a detailed analysis of the administrative record,

with citation of authorities in support of the party’s position, and to the

administrative record:

PLAINTIFF: January 17, 2011

COMMISSIONER: March 16, 2011,

Oral argument is not a necessary part of the review process, and the Court

normally determines Social Security appeals on the basis of the briefs without oral

argument. Motion practice in accordance with Rule 12(c) (judgment on the pleadings)

or Rule 56 (summary judgment) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is

inappropriate. Similarly, Plaintiff may seek remand in the brief, but should not file a

separate motion to remand.

DONE AND ORDERED this 16 day of November, 2010. 

th

s/Gary R. Jones

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

1:10CV154-MP/GRJ
# C_2009109EN.01000602.xml

| 13.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5445 — Mytilineos/Motor Oil/Corinthos Power)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 109/04

On 30 March 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32009M5445. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32009M5445. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-19-00090-CR

FREDDIE MONROE PICKETT A/K/A 

FREDDY MONROE PICKETT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 355th District 

Court

of Hood County (CR13919)

April 30, 2020

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was error in the trial court’s judgment. The judgment is modified to reflect that the 

State proceeded on and Pickett pleaded true to only the second enhancement 

paragraph and the first habitual count. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed as modified.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
# CA2009097EN.01000501.xml

| 28.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 97/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 97/5

---

RESERVE LISTS
   (1)

RESERVE LISTS

1

OPEN COMPETITIONS

OPEN COMPETITIONS

(2009/C 97 A/03)

EPSO/AD/113/07 — Heads of unit (AD 9) having Czech as their main language

| KREJZA | Martin |
| --- | --- |
| LIPTAKOVA | Noriko |
| LIZEROT | Karel |
| OPAVA | Zdenek |
| UHLIR | Radek |

KREJZA

Martin

LIPTAKOVA

Noriko

LIZEROT

Karel

OPAVA

Zdenek

UHLIR

Radek

EPSO/AD/113/07 — Heads of unit (AD 9) having Estonian as their main language

| JAERV | Monika |
| --- | --- |
| MAEGI | Kaili |
| RAUSI | Madis |
| SIMPSON | Erik |
| TAMM | Hiie |

JAERV

Monika

MAEGI

Kaili

RAUSI

Madis

SIMPSON

Erik

TAMM

Hiie

EPSO/AD/114/07 — Heads of unit (AD 12) having Estonian as their main language

| DREVING | Marek |
| --- | --- |
| MALLENE | Meelik |
| PAIDLA | Aivar |

DREVING

Marek

MALLENE

Meelik

PAIDLA

Aivar

EPSO/AD/113/07 — Heads of unit (AD 9) having Hungarian as their main language

| BELENYESSY | Zsuzsanna |
| --- | --- |
| DEVENYI | Levente |
| DOBO | Istvan |
| FUELOEP | Gyozo |
| KAPITANFFY | Krisztina |
| MERY | Ildiko |

BELENYESSY

Zsuzsanna

DEVENYI

Levente

DOBO

Istvan

FUELOEP

Gyozo

KAPITANFFY

Krisztina

MERY

Ildiko

EPSO/AD/113/07 — Heads of unit (AD 9) having Latvian as their main language

| KRŪZE (DZIRKALE) | Edīte |
| --- | --- |
| SALMIŅA (SALA) | Santa |

KRŪZE (DZIRKALE)

Edīte

SALMIŅA (SALA)

Santa

EPSO/AD/114/07 — Heads of unit (AD 12) having Latvian as their main language

| KOVAĻEVSKIS (GRAUDIŅŠ) | Mareks |
| --- | --- |
| LEJASISAKA (MUCINIECE) | Ieva |

KOVAĻEVSKIS (GRAUDIŅŠ)

Mareks

LEJASISAKA (MUCINIECE)

Ieva

EPSO/AD/113/07 — Heads of unit (AD 9) having Lithuanian as their main language

| ZILIONIS | Kestutis |
| --- | --- |

ZILIONIS

Kestutis

EPSO/AD/114/07 — Heads of unit (AD 12) having Lithuanian as their main language

| DASKUS | Marius |
| --- | --- |

DASKUS

Marius

EPSO/AD/113/07 — Heads of unit (AD 9) having Maltese as their main language

| BUHAGIAR | Paul Anthony |
| --- | --- |

BUHAGIAR

Paul Anthony

EPSO/AD/114/07 — Heads of unit (AD 12) having Maltese as their main language

| CARUANA | Joseph |
| --- | --- |

CARUANA

Joseph

EPSO/AD/113/07 — Heads of unit (AD 9) having Polish as their main language

| KADUCZAK | Marek |
| --- | --- |

KADUCZAK

Marek

EPSO/AD/113/07 — Heads of unit (AD 9) having Slovak as their main language

| MILKOVIČOVÁ | Karin |
| --- | --- |
| RUSŇÁK | Miroslav |
| ŠTEFÁNIK | Jozef |
| VARSIK | Branislav |

MILKOVIČOVÁ

Karin

RUSŇÁK

Miroslav

ŠTEFÁNIK

Jozef

VARSIK

Branislav

EPSO/AD/113/07 — Heads of unit (AD 9) having Slovene as their main language

| MARN | Vesna |
| --- | --- |

MARN

Vesna

The reserve lists will be valid until 31 December 2010 and may be extended.

31 December 2010

---

(1)  A successful candidate may explicitly request that her/his name not be published.

1

---
#### JAMES EDWARD BURTON, Administrator of the Estate of LYDA ANN BURTON v. EDWARD JAMES CROGHAN and BERNARD AUSTIN.

(Filed 29 September, 1965.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Bundy, J.,*March 1965 Session of ONSLOW.

Action for the wrongful death of a 6-year-old girl.

Upon the trial the jury found that plaintiff’s intestate was killed by the negligence of defendants and assessed damages in the sum of $2,-500.00. Contending that the amount awarded was inadequate, plaintiff moved to set aside the verdict on the second issue. The motion was denied. Plaintiff appeals assigning error in the judge’s charge on the measure of damages.

*Charles L. Abemethy, Jr., for plaintiff appellant.*

*E. W. Summersill; Ellis, Hooper, Warlick & Waters for defendant appellees.*

Per CüRIAm.

A careful examination of the judge’s charge reveals no error prejudicial to plaintiff. Indeed, the charge was more favorable to appellant than the law allows. The judge instructed the jury that the funeral bill of $895.00 was “an item to be taken into consideration” if it reached the issue of damages. G.S. 28-173 permits the amount recovered in an action for wrongful death to be applied to the payment of the burial expenses of the deceased, but the funeral bill itself is not an item of damages. G.S. 28-174; *Davenport v. Patrick,*227 N.C. 686, 691, 44 S.E. 2d 203, 206. This error in the charge was, no doubt, prejudicial to defendants. They, however, have not complained, and plaintiff may not.

Except for the inclusion of the funeral bill, the judge instructed the jury, with reference to the measure of damages, in conformity with the well established rule applicable in wrongful-death actions. *Bryant v. Woodlief,*252 N.C. 488, 114 S.E. 2d 241; *Caudle v. R. R.,*242 N.C. 466, 88 S.E. 2d 138. The measure of damages for the death of a child is the *393same as for an adult, notwithstanding the difficulty of applying the rule “is greatly increased in the case of an infant.” *Rea v. Simowitz,*226 N.C. 379, 382, 38 S.E. 2d 194, 196; *Russell v. Steamboat Co.,*126 N.C. 961, 967, 36 S.E. 191, 192.

No error.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2


[FOX LOGO]
                                                                    P.O. Box 900
                                            Beverly Hills, California 90213-0900
                                           Phone 310 369 2998   Fax 310 369 4241

TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX
LICENSING & MERCHANDISING
A UNIT OF FOX FILMED ENTERTAINMENT




                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1

                         Dated as of September 16, 1998



Reference is hereby made to that certain fully signed Merchandising License
Agreement No. 6723 dated as of July 15, 1997, in connection with the television
series entitled "THE SIMPSONS" ("Agreement") between Twentieth Century Fox
Licensing and Merchandising, a unit of News America Incorporated ("Fox"), as
Administrator for Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation ("Trademark Licensor"),
and Littlefield, Adams and Company ("Licensee").

The parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows:

    EXTENDED TERM:  The Term, as defined in Section D.1. of the Schedule, is
    hereby extended for a period of one year to expire on December 31, 2000.

Except as herein expressly amended or by necessary implication modified by this
Amendment No. 1, the Agreement in all other respects is hereby ratified and
shall continue in full force and effect.

By signing in the places indicated below, the parties hereto accept and agree to
all of the terms and conditions hereof.

LITTLEFIELD, ADAMS AND COMPANY          TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX LICENSING
                   ("Licensee")         AND MERCHANDISING, A UNIT OF
                                        NEWS AMERICA INCORPORATED
                                        ("FOX") AS ADMINISTRATOR FOR
                                        TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM
                                        CORPORATION     ("Trademark Licensor")


By  /s/ Michael B. Balber                  By  /s/ Jamie Samson
    ------------------------------------       -----------------------------
      Its  President and Chief Executive        Its Senior Vice President
           Officer

Date:   September 29, 1998                     Date:   October 1, 1998
        --------------------------------               ---------------------