alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 58 (Monday, March 27, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15790]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7474]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-30,049]


Hartz Mountain Corporation Harrison, NJ; Amended Certification 
Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to 
Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on December 2, 1994, applicable 
to all workers of the subject firm engaged in employment related to the 
production of aquariums and reflectors.
    The certification notice was published in the Federal Register on 
December 16, 1994 (59 FR 65077).
    At the request of the State Agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. New findings show that a 
few workers were laid off a few weeks before the impact date of June 
16, 1993. Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification by 
deleting the June 16, 1993 impact date and inserting a new impact date 
of April 1, 1993.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers who were adversely affected by increased imports.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-30,049 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Hartz Mountain Corporation who became totally or 
partially separated from employment on or after April 1, 1993 are 
eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the 
Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 17th day of March 1995.
Victor J. Trunzo,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-7474 Filed 3-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
Exhibit 99.1

                  Certification of Principal Executive Officer
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, Louis LaSorsa, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (principal executive
officer) of Phoenix Color Corp. (the "Registrant"), certify that to the best of
my knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2002 of the Registrant ("the Report"):

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of
            the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


/s/ Louis LaSorsa
-----------------
Louis LaSorsa
November 13, 2002
#### C. A. GEORGE v. JOHN H. SMATHERS and JOSEPHINE SMATHERS.

(Filed 16 January, 1929.)

Pleadings — Demurrer—Effect of Demurrer.

Where the defendant demurs to the sufficiency of the allegations of the complaint, and sets up a counterclaim by way of answer to which the plaintiff demurs, and both demurrers are sustained: Held, the matters alleged both in the complaint and answer are admitted, and under the facts of this appeal the rights of the parties can be more satisfactorily determined after a full disclosure of all the facts and circumstances, and the action of the trial judge in sustaining the demurrers is reversed on appeal.

Appeal by plaintiff and defendants from *MacRae, Special Judge,*at October Special Term, 1928, of Haywood.

Reversed.

*Alley & Alley for plaintiff.*

*Joseph E. JoJmson for defendants.*

Adams, J.

Tire controversy involves the alleged rights of the parties growing out of the construction and use of a party wall. The plaintiff brought suit to recover the sum of $513.92 as one-half the actual cost of the construction of the wall in question, and the defendants, denying certain material allegations of the complaint, pleaded a counterclaim to the plaintiff’s cause of action, the circumstances in reference to which are fully set forth in the further answer of the defendants. They pray that the plaintiff’s action be dismissed and that they recover of the plaintiff the sum of $1,500. The plaintiff filed a reply to the further answer and counterclaim; and after the jury had been empaneled and the pleadings had been read, the defendants demurred *ore tenus*to the complaint on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in that it seeks contribution from the defendants for one-half the cost of building an additional story to an existing party wall, resting one-half on the plaintiff’s land and one-half on the defendants’ land. The plaintiff demurred *ore tenus*to the further answer and counterclaim for that sufficient facts are not therein stated to constitute a cause of action. Both demurrers were sustained and the complaint and the counterclaim were dismissed and the costs were taxed against the plaintiff.

As each demurrer admits of the allegations of the adverse pleadings, we are of opinion that the rights of the parties can be more satisfactorily determined after a full disclosure of all the facts and circumstances *515wbieb are made tbe basis of tbe plaintiff’s complaint and of tbe defendants’ further answer and counterclaim. Tbe judgment sustaining each demurrer is therefore reversed to tbe end that tbe facts may be developed and tbe disputed allegations determined.

Reversed.
#### Ricky Alonzo EVANS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 55848.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

July 25, 1989.

Nancy Hentig Narrow, Benton, Elizabeth Clark, Columbia, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Robert V. Franson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant/movant, Ricky Alonzo Evans, appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm. Rule 84.-16(b)(2).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-25-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-27-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-27-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,806
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  110,064
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,268
<INVENTORY>                                    106,058
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               220,784
<PP&E>                                         177,977
<DEPRECIATION>                                (63,716)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 410,738
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          172,509
<BONDS>                                        393,312
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            59
<OTHER-SE>                                   (128,079)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   410,738
<SALES>                                        106,371
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               106,371
<CGS>                                           65,096
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   65,096
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                42,855
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   493
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,585
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,165)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (763)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,165)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,402)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Maureen V. Cooper-Jones, Appellant, v Henry W. Williams, Jr., Respondent.

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s application to relocate with the children to the New York City metropolitan area because it would not be in the best interests of the children to do so. When the parties were divorced in 1985, they agreed that the children would reside with petitioner and that both parties would reside "in Monroe County or at no greater distance between residences than 30 miles.” On this record there is no circumstance or concern pertaining to the children which warrants relocation *(see, Stec v Levindofske,*153 AD2d 310). The desire of a custodial parent and his or her new spouse to reside in a particular area does not, by itself, amount to an exceptional circumstance or pressing concern justifying relocation of the children and the consequential interference with the noncustodial parent’s visitation rights *(see, Weiss v Weiss,*52 NY2d 170, 176-177; *Richardson v Howard, 135*AD2d 1140; *Matter of Kelly v Kelly,*132 AD2d 977). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Strobridge, J.—custody.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Davis and Lowery, JJ.
---

EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18
U.S.C. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Report of SOLAR ENERTECH CORP. (the
Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report"), I, Leo
Shi Young, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

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

|Date: February 14, 2007 | By:
      /s/ Leo Shi Young                    
|----------------------- | -----------------------------------------------
|                        |                                                
|                        | Leo Shi Young                                  
|                        | President and CEO - Principal Executive Officer

---
EXHIBIT 21.1

                 Subsidiaries of the Registrant

                    (Global Industries, Ltd.)



                     NAME                   INCORPORATION

       Global Divers and Contractors, LLC       Louisiana
       Global Pipelines PLUS, LLC               Louisiana
       Pipelines, Incorporated                  Louisiana
       Global Movible Offshore, LLC             Louisiana
       Pelican Transportation, LLC              Louisiana
       The Red Adair Company, LLC               Louisiana
       Global Industries Offshore, LLC          Delaware
       Global Offshore International, LTD       Cayman Islands
       Global International Vessels, Inc.       Cayman Islands
       Norman Offshore Pipelines, LLC           Louisiana
       Global Pipelines Plus Nigeria, Ltd.      Nigeria
       Global Offshore, Pty. Ltd.               Australia
       Global Industries Asia Pacific PTE, Ltd. Singapore
       Yamado Enterprise, Sdn. Bhd.             Brunei
       PT Global Industries Asia-Pacific        Indonesia
       Global Asia Pacific Industries, Sdn. Bhd.Malaysia
       Subtec Asia, Ltd.                        Isle of Mann
       Subtec Marine Services, Ltd.             Cyprus
       Subtec Offshore Support, Ltd.            Cyprus
       Subtec Middle East, Ltd.                 Delaware
       Subtec Mational Company, LLC             United Arab Emirates
       GIL Holdings, LLC                        Louisiana
       Global Production Services, LLC          Louisiana
       Global Industries Mexico Holdings,
         S. de R.L. de C.V.                     Mexico
       Global Vessels Mexico, S. de R.L.
         de C.V.                                Mexico
       Global Industries Offshore Services,
         S. de R.L. de C.V.                     Mexico
       Global Industries Services,
         S. de R.L. de C.V.                     Mexico
       Global Offshore Mexico,
         S. de R.L. de C.V.                     Mexico
[CONFORMED COPY]

Exhibit 4.62

Sixth Amendment to Common Stock Purchase Agreement

by and between

ZeniMax Media Inc.

and

SBS Broadcasting S.A.

December 20, 2002

---

Sixth Amendment to Common Stock Purchase Agreement

This Sixth Amendment to Common Stock Purchase Agreement (the "Sixth Amendment") is made as of this
20th day of December 2002, to amend the Common Stock Purchase Agreement dated October 30, 2000, as modified by a First Amendment dated May 15, 2001, a Second
Amendment dated June 14, 2001, a Third Amendment dated April 16, 2002, a Fourth Amendment dated June 6, 2002, and a Fifth Amendment dated September 27, 2002 (the
"Agreement") by and between ZeniMax Media Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and SBS
Broadcasting S.A., a Luxembourg corporation (the "Purchaser" or "SBS").

In
consideration of the representations, warranties and covenants in the Agreement and for other good and valuable consideration, the Company and SBS hereby agree as follows:

The
parties agree that all other terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement remain in full force and effect.

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Sixth Amendment as of the day and year first above written.

| |  | COMPANY:          
| |  | ------------------
| |  | ZENIMAX MEDIA INC.
| |  | By:               
| |  | Name:             
| |  | Title:            

| |  | Address: | 1370 Piccard Drive, Suite 120
Rockville, MD 20850
| |  | -------- | -------------------------------------------------

2

---

| |  | PURCHASER:           
| |  | ---------------------
| |  | SBS Broadcasting S.A.
| |  | By:                  
| |  | Name:                
| |  | Title:               

| |  | Address:   | SBS Broadcasting S.A.
8-10 rue Mathias Hardt
BP 39
L-2010
Luxembourg                                     
| |  | ---------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | Copies to: | SBS Services B.V.
Quintet Office Park
Rietlandpark 353
1019EM Amsterdam
Holland
Attn: Corporate Secretary

3

---

QuickLinks
<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-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       2,056,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               35,668,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 4,099,000
<INVENTORY>                                 16,867,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            53,690,000
<PP&E>                                      15,093,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,320,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              62,457,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,285,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        87,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  54,085,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                62,457,000
<SALES>                                     32,966,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            32,966,000
<CGS>                                       26,798,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               26,798,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,749,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               100,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,596,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   574,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,022,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,022,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of
our report dated February 20, 1997, except with respect to certain matters
discussed in Note 7 and matters discussed in Note 14 as to which the date is
April 14, 1998, included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed
Registration Statement file no. 333-18029 on Form S-8 and Registration
Statement file no. 333-20825 on Form S-3.


ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Houston, Texas
April 14, 1998
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-2018-0025-3922

Helen of Troy:

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
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-2018-0025-3603

JLG Industries, Inc:

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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 22, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 15053]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6951]



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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
33 CFR Part 165

[CGD13-95-002]


Safety Zone Regulation: Bremerton, Washington, to Queets, 
Washington

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Temporary final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to the temporary final 
regulations (CGD13-95-002) which were published Monday, March 6, 1995 
(60 FR 12112). The regulations established a temporary safety zone 
around vessels transiting from Bremerton, Washington to Queets, 
Washington.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 22, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LTJG K. Paquette, c/o Captain of the 
Port Puget Sound, 1519 Alaskan Way South, Seattle, Washington, 98134, 
(206) 217-6232.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The regulations that are the subject of these corrections 
established a temporary moving safety zone around two towing vessels 
and a barge transiting from Bremerton, Washington to Queet, Washington. 
The final rule erroneously states the name of the barge to be 
``NESTUCCA''. The correct name of the barge is ``EDGECUMBE''.

Need for Correction

    As published, the final rule contained errors which would make the 
safety zone ineffective and therefore must be corrected.

Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, the publication on March 6, 1995, of the temporary 
final rule (CGD13-95-002) which was the subject of FR Doc. 95-5385, is 
corrected as follows:
    1. Beginning on page 12112 in the first column, change ``NESTUCCA'' 
to ``EDGECUMBE'' wherever it appears in the preamble.
    2. In Sec. 165.T13-002, on page 12113 in the first column, in 
paragraph (a), ``NESTUCCA'' should read ``EDGECUMBE''.
    3. In Sec. 165.T13-002, on page 12113 in the second column, in 
paragraph (d), ``NESTUCCA'' should read ``EDGECUMBE''.

    Dated: March 13, 1995.
R.K. Softye,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 95-6951 Filed 3-21-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M