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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,871,070
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,000,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,884,768
<PP&E>                                         279,413
<DEPRECIATION>                                  55,938
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,108,243
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,419
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       229,791
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,856,033
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,108,243
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                52,999
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,617,836
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,564,837)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### The STATE of Texas, Appellant, v. Nadine JANICEK, Appellee.

No. 03-95-00324-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin.

Feb. 21, 1996.

Hollis C. Lewis, Jr., County & District Attorney, Cameron, for appellant.

Don G. Humble, Humble & Humble, L.L.P., Cameron, for appellee.

Before CARROLL, C.J., and JONES and B.A. SMITH, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The State appeals an order of the district court granting appellee’s motion to suppress evidence. Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 44.01(a)(5). Because we conclude that the *128State is not entitled to appeal the order, the appeal mil be dismissed.

The State is entitled to appeal an order granting a motion to suppress evidence only “if jeopardy has not attached in the case and if the prosecuting attorney certifies to the trial court that the appeal is not taken for the purpose of delay and that the evidence ... is of substantial importance in the case.” Art. 44.01(a)(5); *see State v. Brown,*843 S.W.2d 267 (Tex.App.—Austin 1992, no pet.) (State not entitled to appeal suppression order where record showed that jeopardy had attached and where certification was not signed by prosecuting attorney). Furthermore, a prosecuting attorney may not “make an appeal” from an order suppressing evidence later than the fifteenth day after the order is “entered.” Art. 44.01(d); *see State v. Muller,*829 S.W.2d 805, 812 (Tex.Crim.App.1992); *State v. Demaret,*764 S.W.2d 857, 858 (Tex.App.—Austin 1989, no pet.) (article 44.01(d) is substantive limitation on State’s right to appeal); *see also State v. Rosenbaum,*818 S.W.2d 398, 402-03 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (timetable for State appeals begins on date order is signed).

In this cause, the order suppressing evidence was signed on May 22, 1995. The State’s notice of appeal, signed by the elected prosecuting attorney, was filed on May 30. The Clerk of this Court received the transcript on June 2. On that date, the Clerk sent notice to the parties that the transcript did not contain the prosecuting attorney’s certification. On June 9, eighteen days after the suppression order was signed, the prosecuting attorney filed his article 44.01(a)(5) certification.

The prosecuting attorney did not, within the fifteen days allowed for “making” an appeal from a suppression order, certify to the trial court that this appeal was not taken for the purpose of delay and that the evidence suppressed was of substantial importance. As a consequence, the State is not entitled to appeal the order suppressing evidence.

The appeal is dismissed.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3088

Price Pump Company:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 41 (Thursday, March 2, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 11694]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5140]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-508-OL; ASLBP Docket No. 83-486-01-OL]


Washington Public Power Supply System; WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 
3; Notice of Reconstitution of Board

    Pursuant to the authority contained in 10 CFR 2.721, the Atomic 
Safety and Licensing Board for Washington Public Power Supply System 
(WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 3), with the above-identified Docket No., is 
hereby reconstituted by appointing Administrative Judge Charles 
Bechhoefer as Chairman of the Licensing Board in place of 
Administrative Law Judge Morton B. Margulies who has retired.
    As reconstituted, the Board is comprised of the following 
Administrative Judges:

Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman
Richard F. Foster
Frederick J. Shon

    All correspondence, documents and other material shall be filed 
with the Board in accordance with 10 CFR 2.701 (1980). The address of 
the new Chairman is: Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman, Atomic Safety and 
Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of February 1995.
James P. Gleason,
Acting Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
Panel.
[FR Doc. 95-5140 Filed 3-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3971

Academy, Ltd:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
Exhibit 32.1








Certification
of CEO Pursuant to


18
U.S.C. Section 1350,


as
Adopted Pursuant to


Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of GAMCO Investors, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Mario J.
Gabelli, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of his 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 results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Mario J.
Gabelli


Name:
Mario J. Gabelli


Title:   Chief
Executive Officer


Date:   November
7, 2008





This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
<PAGE>   1


                                  EXHIBIT 10.2

           EXTENSION AND RATIFICATION OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN LIVING
              CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC. AND EDWARD L. KUNTZ


<PAGE>   2


                    [LIVING CENTERS OF AMERICA LETTERHEAD]




                                        December 13, 1996



Mr. Edward L. Kuntz
15415 Katy Freeway, Suite 800
Houston, Texas 77094

     Re: Extension and Ratification of Employment Agreement

Dear Mr. Kuntz:

     As you are aware, Living Centers of America, Inc. ("Company") has agreed
to ratify and extend the Employment Agreement between you and the Company
effective as of January 1, 1993 and to give effect to the automatic extension
therein so that term of employment is extended until January 1, 2000. If the
foregoing is agreeable to you, please sign this letter in the space indicated
below.

                                    Very truly yours,

                                    LIVING CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC.


                                    By /s/ Leroy D. Williams
                                      ------------------------------------------

                                    Name: Leroy D. Williams
                                         ---------------------------------------

                                    Title: Chief Operating Officer and President
                                          --------------------------------------

AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY:

/s/ Edward L. Kuntz        
-------------------------
Edward L. Kuntz
STATE OF DELAWARESECRETARY OF STATEDIVISION OF CORPORATIONSFILED 09:00 AM 02/12/2001010070850  3341519
 CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP AND MERGER
 of
 GREG MANNING AUCTIONS, INC.
(a New York corporation)
 into
 GREG MANNING DELAWARE, INC.
(a Delaware corporation)
  GMAI
 GM Delaware
  RESOLVED
 RESOLVED
   RESOLVED




---



##### 



RESOLVED,
  RESOLVED, Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C
 RESOLVED,
 RESOLVED,
 Exhibit A




---



##### 








---



##### 



Greg Manning Auctions, Inc., 
a New York corporationBy:
    /s/ Greg ManningGreg ManningChairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer
and President




---



##### 



GM New York GM Delaware
 New York Common Stock
 Delaware Common Stock
   
 Merger NYBCL DGCL Merger Surviving Corporation
 Effective Time Effective Time
 Effects of the Merger




---



##### 



Certificate of Incorporation
 Bylaws
 Name of Surviving Corporation
 Directors and Officers
 
 Conversion
 Cancellation
 Exchange of Certificates
 -2-




---



##### 



Approval
 Third Party Consents
 
 Amendment
 Termination
 Necessary Actions, etc
 Counterparts
 Governing Law
  -3-




---



##### 



GREG MANNING AUCTIONS, INC.By:
    /s/ Greg ManningGreg ManningPresidentGREG MANNING DELAWARE, INC.By:
    /s/ Greg ManningGreg ManningPresident -4-




---



##### 



STATE OF DELAWARESECRETARY OF STATEDIVISION OF CORPORATIONSFILED 09:00 AM 04/25/2002020264016  3341519
 STATE of DELAWARE
CERTIFICATE of AMENDMENT of  CERTIFICATE of INCORPORATION
 
    
    First:That at a meeting of the Board of Directors of Greg Manning Delaware, Inc.
resolutions were duly adopted setting forth a proposed amendment of the Certificate of
Incorporation of said corporation, declaring said amendment to be advisable and calling a
meeting of the stockholders of said corporation for consideration thereof. The resolution
setting forth the proposed amendment is as follows:Resolved, that the Certificate of
Incorporation of this corporation be amended by changing the Article thereof numbered 1 so
that, as amended, said Article shall be and read as follows:1. Name. The name of the corporation is Greg Manning Auctions, Inc.
    
    Second:That thereafter, pursuant to resolution of its Board of Directors, a
special meeting of the stockholders of said corporation was duly called and held,
upon notice in accordance with Section 222 of the General Corporation Law of the
State of Delaware at which meeting the necessary number of shares as required by
statute were voted in favor of the amendment.
    
    Third:That said amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of
Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.
    
    Fourth:That the capital of said corporation shall not be reduced under or by
reason of said amendment.
 BY:

/s/ Larry Crawford(Authorized Officer)NAME:

Larry Crawford, Chief Financial Officer(Type or Print)
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                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 on Form 10-K for the period ended December
31, 2003, of Synagro Technologies, Inc. (the "Company"), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J. Paul
Withrow, certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company and that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.


                                                        /s/ J. Paul Withrow
                                                        -------------------
                                                        J. Paul Withrow,
                                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                                        March 29, 2004


                                       83
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 58 (Monday, March 27, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15746-15747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7382]



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


COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Indiana Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of 
the Indiana Advisory Committee to the Commission will be held from 9:00 
a.m. until 6:30 p.m., on Thursday, April 20, 1995, at the Indiana 
Convention Center and RCA Dome, 100 South Capitol Avenue, Indianapolis, 
Indiana 46225. The purpose of the meeting is to gather information on 
``The Enforcement of Affirmative Action Compliance in Indiana under 
Executive Order 11246.''
    Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation 
to the Committee, should contact Committee Chairperson Hollis E. 
[[Page 15747]] Hughes, 219-232-8201, or Constance M. Davis, Director of 
the Midwestern Regional Office, 312-353-8311 (TDD 312-353-8326). 
Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the 
services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional 
Office at least five (5) working days before the scheduled date of the 
meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission.

    Dated at Washington, DC, March 17, 1995.
Carol-Lee Hurley,
Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 95-7382 Filed 3-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2990

C&K Components, LLC:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 17, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-3512

PEER Bearing Company: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION
1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with
the Annual Report of Shoe Carnival, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the
period ending January 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark L. Lemond, President and
Chief Executive 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; and2.
            
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.


Date:
            April 15, 2010
            By:
            /s/ Mark L.
      LemondMark L. LemondPresident andChief Executive
  Officer


---
#### Greenwood Packing Corporation, Respondent, v Ocean-Venture, Inc., Appellant.

Levine, J.

Appeals (transferred to this court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department), (1) from an order of the Supreme Court (Hickman, J.), entered May 8,1989 in Orange County, which denied defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment entered against it, and (2) from an order of said court, entered August 22, 1989 in Orange County, which denied defendant’s motion for renewal.

Plaintiff commenced a breach of contract action against defendant, a corporation doing business in Massachusetts, in October 1988. Three months later, plaintiff entered a default judgment against defendant. Several weeks later, plaintiff’s attorney was contacted by defendant’s New York counsel who requested a voluntary withdrawal and vacatur of the judgment. This request was denied by plaintiff. Two months later, defendant moved for vacatur of the default and for an order to compel plaintiff to accept its answer. Supreme Court denied the motion, finding that although defendant demonstrated a meritorious defense to the action, the moving papers failed to set forth any excuse for the default.

Several months later, defendant made a motion to renew in which its Massachusetts counsel averred that, upon receipt of the summons and complaint, he contacted the Orange County *910Clerk’s office and was advised by someone named "Cheryl” that no responsive pleading was required until defendant received notification that the case was entered in court. The moving papers, however, did not explain why the reason for the default was not known at the time of the original motion to vacate. Thus, in our view, the motion to renew was properly denied *(see, Mayer v McBrunigan Constr. Corp.,*123 AD2d 606).

Orders affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Mikoll, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.