alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
3XEOLF9HUVLRQRI%&,

380392/87(&$67,1*35(6685(&217$,1,1*67$,1/(6667((/



3,$==$52%(57

35,&(3803&203$1<

2WKHU

12

3XEOLF9HUVLRQRI%&,
 .*

12

12

 .*

 .*

,03257,1*7+,63$57)520&+,1$&2676
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


   
        We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 33-94026, 33-51234, 33-75028, 33-77684, 33-57628,
33-80581 and 33-80583), pertaining to the Apria Healthcare Group Inc./Homedco
Group, Inc.'s Stock Incentive Plan, Apria Healthcare Group Inc. Amended and
Restated 1992 Stock Option Plan, 1992 Stock Incentive Plan, 1994 Employee Stock
Purchase Plan, 1991 Nonqualified Stock Option Plan and 1991 Management Stock
Purchase Plan of our report dated March 6, 1996, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Apria Healthcare Group Inc.
for the year ended December 31, 1995, as amended, included in this Form 10-K/A.
    



                                                ERNST & YOUNG LLP

   
Orange County, California
October 4, 1996
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 21, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15000]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6920]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
[AC-18; OTS No. 03952]


First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Ashland, Kentucky, 
Ashland, Kentucky; Approval of Conversion Application

    Notice is hereby given that on February 13, 1995, the Deputy 
Assistant Director, Corporate Activities, Office of Thrift Supervision, 
or her designee, acting pursuant to delegated authority, approved the 
application of First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Ashland, 
Kentucky, Ashland, Kentucky, to convert to the stock form of 
organization. Copies of the application are available for inspection at 
the Information Services Division, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552, and the Central Regional Office, 
Office of Thrift Supervision, 111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 800, 
Chicago, Illinois 60601-4360.

    Dated: March 16, 1995.

    By the Office of Thrift Supervision.
Nadine Y. Washington,
Corporate Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-6920 Filed 3-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6720-01-M
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-23-00116-CV 

 

ADAM MOORE, APPELLANT 

V. 

STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE PROTECTION OF S.J.E., APPELLEE 

On Appeal from the 285th District Court 

Bexar County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2022CI24897, Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Presiding 

July 12, 2023 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ. 

Appellant, Adam Moore, appeals from the trial court’s protective order.1

Appellant’s brief was originally due June 7, 2023, but was not filed. By letter of June 15, 

2023, we notified Moore that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution, 

1 Originally appealed to the Fourth Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by 

the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. 
2

without further notice, if a brief was not received by June 26. To date, Moore has neither

filed a brief nor had any further communication with this Court.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b).

Per Curiam
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2649

Reelcraft Industries:

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 did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FILED AS
PART OF THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      10,332,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               20,355,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 3,100,000
<INVENTORY>                                 14,285,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            49,654,000
<PP&E>                                      15,945,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              10,108,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              56,183,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,204,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        87,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  47,892,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                56,183,000
<SALES>                                     18,549,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,549,000
<CGS>                                       17,138,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,138,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,121,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                89,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,469,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (864,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,605,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,605,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.18)
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 47 (Friday, March 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 13209]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6112]





                Sunshine Act Meetings



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47, Friday, March 10, 1995 / Sunshine 
Act Meetings
[[Page 13209]] 




ASSASSINATION RECORD REVIEW BOARD

``FEDERAL REGISTER'' CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: 60 FR 9722, 
Feb. 20, 1995.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING: 1:30 p.m., March 7, 
1995.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING: The place of the meeting has been changed to: 
Fifth Floor Theater, National Archives and Records Administration, 7th 
and Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20408.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Thomas Samoluk, Press and Public 
Affairs Officer, 600 E Street, NW, Second Floor, Washington, D.C. 
20530. Telephone: (202) 724-0088; Fax: (202) 724-0457.
Sheryl L. Walter,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 95-6112 Filed 3-8-95; 2:55 pm]

BILLING CODE 6820-TD-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2843

Speck Pumps-Pool Products, Inc: 

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/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions.

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
#### CLYDE SITTON v. V. E. TWIGGS and JESS SHADRICK.

(Filed 23 March, 1938.)

1. Negligence §§ 11, 19b — Failure of plaintiff to leave scene held not contributory negligence barring recovery for negligent injury-

Plaintiff was injured by a stray bullet in an affray between defendants at a public place. Appealing defendant moved for judgment as of nonsuit on the theory that plaintiff’s own evidence showed that he had an opportunity to leave the scene and failed to avail himself of the opportunity. *Belcl:*The evidence does not disclose contributory negligence as a matter of law.

S. Negligence §§ 1, 19a—

Evidence tending to show the use of firearms in a public place where a multitude of people were assembled, to the injury of plaintiff, a bystander, *held*sufficient evidence of actionable negligence to take the case to the jury.

*262Appeal by plaintiff "from *Alley, J.,*at December Term, 1937, of TuaNsylvania. Reversed.

*Ralph H. Ramsey, Jr., for plaintiff, appellant.*

*J. Y. Jordan, Jr., for defendant Twiggs, appellee.*

Schenck, J.

This is an action to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been unlawfully and negligently inflicted by the defendants. The appellee, Twiggs, alone filed answer, and the trial below was of the alleged cause of action as it related to him.

The plaintiff alleged that as he was intending to enter the back door of the courtroom, where a political meeting was being held, and after he had ascended the rear staircase of the courthouse and was standing on the second floor upon which the courtroom was located, the defendants engaged in an affray on a landing half way up the rear staircase, and that Twiggs drew a pistol and in a scuffle the pistol was fired and the ball therefrom struck and injured the plaintiff’s foot.

The plaintiff testified, to facts tending to sustain these allegations, and was corroborated in part by the testimony of others. When plaintiff had introduced his evidence and rested his case the judge sustained motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit (C. S., 567) and plaintiff appealed, assigning error.

While it does not appear in the record, we gather from the argument had before us that the trial judge granted the motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit upon the theory that the plaintiff’s own testimony established contributory negligence in that it showed that plaintiff had an opportunity to get away from the scene of the affray and failed to avail himself thereof. We cannot concur in this ruling. While there may have been ‘ evidence tending to show that the plaintiff might have gotten away from the scene we cannot hold, as a matter of law, that this evidence established contributory negligence.

The evidence tending to show the use of firearms, a pistol, in a public place, the courthouse, where a multitude of people were assembled, to the injury of the plaintiff, a bystander, was sufficient evidence of actionable negligence to carry the case to the jury.

We are of the opinion, and so hold, that the trial judge was in error in sustaining the motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit, and for that reaspn the judgment below is

Reversed.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4128 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4128

  To require the Comptroller General of the United States to provide 
      certain information with respect to unimplemented priority 
 recommendations as part of the Comptroller General's annual reporting 
                  to Congress, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 3, 2022

Mr. Portman (for himself and Mr. Peters) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the Comptroller General of the United States to provide 
      certain information with respect to unimplemented priority 
 recommendations as part of the Comptroller General's annual reporting 
                  to Congress, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Improving Government for America's 
Taxpayers Act''.

SEC. 2. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE UNIMPLEMENTED PRIORITY 
              RECOMMENDATIONS.

    The Comptroller General of the United States shall, as part of the 
Comptroller General's annual reporting to committees of Congress--
            (1) consolidate Matters for Congressional Consideration 
        from the Government Accountability Office in one report 
        organized by policy topic that includes the amount of time such 
        Matters have been unimplemented and submit such report to 
        congressional leadership and the oversight committees of each 
        House;
            (2) with respect to the annual letters sent by the 
        Comptroller General to individual agency heads and relevant 
        congressional committees on the status of unimplemented 
        priority recommendations, identify any additional congressional 
        oversight actions that can help agencies implement such 
        priority recommendations and address any underlying issues 
        relating to such implementation;
            (3) make publicly available the information described in 
        paragraphs (1) and (2); and
            (4) publish any known costs of unimplemented priority 
        recommendations, as applicable.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 15.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the (a) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-96569) pertaining to
the SBS Broadcasting SA 1992 Share Incentive Plan, SBS Broadcasting SA 1994 Share Incentive Plan, and Harry Sloan 1992 Stock Option Grant; (b) Registration Statement
(Form F-3 No. 333-13872), as amended, pertaining to the registration of common stock; (c) Registration Statement (Form S-8
No. 333-8658) pertaining to the SBS Broadcasting SA 1992 Share Incentive Plan, SBS Broadcasting SA 1994 Share Incentive Plan, SBS Broadcasting SA Long-Term Employees'
Stock Ownership Plan, SBS Broadcasting SA 1997 Senior Management Incentive Compensation Plan and SBS Broadcasting SA Stock Option Exchange Plan; and (d) Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-115616) pertaining to the SBS Broadcasting SA 2004 Share Incentive Plan, of our report dated February 25, 2005, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of SBS Broadcasting S.A. included in the Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2004.

| |  |                             
| |  | ----------------------------
| |  | /s/ERNST & YOUNG ACCOUNTANTS

Amsterdam,
The Netherlands
June 28, 2005

---



QuickLinks
#### STATE v. JOHN WILSON.

(Filed 20 May, 1942.)

Indictment and Warrant § 15—

The Superior Court, upon appeal from a municipal police court, has discretionary power to permit an amendment of the warrant.

Appeal'by defendant from *Phillips, J.,*at January Criminal Term, 1942, of BuNCOjvibe.

No error.

*366Defendant, on appeal from the police court of tbe city of Asheville, was tried and convicted upon a warrant charging the violation of the provisions of C. S., 4358. The warrant was amended before trial in the Superior Court. From judgment on the verdict defendant appealed.

*Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton and Patton for the Slate.*

*I. C. Crawford for defendant, appellant.*

Per Curiam.

A careful perusal of the record leaves us with the impression that there was ample evidence — direct and circumstantial — to support the verdict. The allowance of an amendment of the warrant after the cause reached the Superior Court was within the discretion of the court.

The defendant’s assignments of error fail to point to any harmful or prejudicial error. Hence, the verdict and judgment must stand.

No error.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4314 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4314

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the eligible age 
for the exemption from the retirement plan early withdrawal penalty for 
                        public safety officers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 26, 2022

Mr. Toomey (for himself and Mr. Bennet) 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 modify the eligible age 
for the exemption from the retirement plan early withdrawal penalty for 
                        public safety officers.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Public Safety Employees' 
Timely Retirement Act of 2022''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF ELIGIBLE AGE.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 72(t)(10) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``age 50'' and 
inserting ``age 50 or 25 years of service under the plan, whichever is 
earlier''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4377 

To designate the El Paso Community Healing Garden National Memorial, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 9, 2022 

Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. LUJA ́N) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

A BILL 

To designate the El Paso Community Healing Garden 

National Memorial, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF EL PASO COMMUNITY HEAL4 ING GARDEN NATIONAL MEMORIAL. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The Healing Garden located at 

6 6900 Delta Drive, El Paso, Texas, is designated as the 

7 ‘‘El Paso Community Healing Garden National Memo8 rial’’. 

9 (b) EFFECT OF DESIGNATION.—The national memo10 rial designated by this section is not a unit of the National 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4377 IS

1 Park System and the designation of the El Paso Commu2 nity Healing Garden National Memorial shall not require 

3 or authorize Federal funds to be expended for any purpose 

4 related to that national memorial. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

SHIRLEY TABB, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

) Civil Action No. 06-0789 (PLF)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and )

 BRENDA DONALD WALKER, )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

At the request of the defendants’ counsel, the Court has reviewed its Opinion of

March 19, 2009, reported as Tabb v. District of Columbia, 605 F. Supp. 2d 89 (D.D.C. 2009), to

determine whether an inconsistency exists between that Opinion and the Order of the same date. 

Upon careful review, the Court has concluded that the Order is incorrect. As laid out in the

Opinion, the Court determined that genuine issues of material fact existed as to the plaintiff’s

First Amendment claims against both defendants. In a subsequent portion of the Opinion, the

Court also determined, however, that it was appropriate to grant judgment for the District of

Columbia on plaintiff’s First Amendment claim because plaintiff had failed to proffer evidence

that the District of Columbia had a policy or practice of retaliating against employees for

exercising their First Amendment rights. See Tabb v. District of Columbia, 605 F. Supp. 2d at

95-95. Hence there could be no municipal liability for a First Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. Id. at 96. The Order therefore should have stated that defendants’ motion for summary

judgment was DENIED as to plaintiff’s First Amendment claim against Brenda Donald Walker
but GRANTED as to plaintiff’s First Amendment claim against the District of Columbia. An

Amended Order will issue this same day.

SO ORDERED.

_/s/_____________________________

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN

United States District Judge

DATE: June 16, 2010

2