alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### Table of Contents



UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 Form 10-Q/A
 (Amendment No. 1)
  þ
    
    QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 For the quarterly period ended December 31, 2005
 or
 o
    
    TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 For the transition period from  to
 Commission File Number: 0-24091
 Tweeter Home Entertainment Group, Inc.
  Delaware
(State or other jurisdiction of
    
    04-3417513
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)incorporation or organization)
 40 Pequot Way
Canton, MA 02021   781-830-3000
 þ o
  Large accelerated filer o
    
    Accelerated filer þ
    
    Non-accelerated filer o
 o þ
  TITLE OF CLASS
Common Stock, $0.01 par value
    
    OUTSTANDING AT FEBRUARY 6, 2006
25,077,214




---



##### Table of Contents



Explanatory Note




---



TABLE OF CONTENTS  SIGNATURESEX-31.1 SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND ACTING CFO    Table of Contents  
 SIGNATURES
  TWEETER HOME ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Joseph G. McGuireJoseph G. McGuirePresident and Chief Executive Officer andacting Chief Financial OfficerDate: June 26, 2006
Exhibit 32.2








Certification of CFO 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 March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Robert S. Zuccaro, as Chief Financial 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/ Robert S. Zuccaro


Name: Robert S. Zuccaro


Title:   Chief Financial Officer


Date:   May 6, 2011





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.
#### Dr. Terry J. THOMPSON, Appellant, v. Margaret A. THOMPSON, Appellee.

No. 01-94-00507-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.).

Feb. 16, 1995.

Tom Alexander/Linda Marshall, Houston, for appellant.

Before COHEN, MIRABAL and TAFT, JJ.

OPINION

TAFT, Justice.

This is an appeal by writ of error from a default judgment entered against the appel*302lant, Dr. Terry J. Thompson, and in favor of the appellee, Margaret A. Thompson. We reverse for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

On May 21, 1993, Margaret Thompson (Margaret) filed a petition to modify a foreign decree and motion to register a foreign decree. Margaret sought to modify the amount of child support payments due her from Dr. Terry Thompson (Terry). The Thompsons were divorced on December 15, 1980 in Steuben County, Indiana and had four children during their marriage. Their son, Mitchell, is the only child who is the subject of this suit. Margaret and Mitchell reside in Texas, and Terry resides in Indiana.

When Margaret filed this suit, a modification action filed by Terry was already pending in an Indiana state court. Terry did not participate in the Texas action and a default judgment was entered against him on November 8, 1993. Terry subsequently filed a motion to set aside default judgment and motion for new trial, which were denied.

In his third point of error, Terry complains that the trial court erred in rendering a default judgment because the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction. We agree.

Terry correctly points out that a Texas court may not modify the child support order of a court from another state if that state has adopted laws substantially similar to Chapter 21 of the Texas Family Code., Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 21.08(d) (Vernon Supp. 1995). Texas has adopted the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 21.51 (Vernon Supp.1995). Indiana has adopted the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act. Ind.Code Ann. § 31-2-1-39 (West 1979). These two acts are “substantially similar”. *See*Unif. INTERSTATE Family SuppoRT Act, Prefatory Note— “Reciprocity not Required,” 9 U.L.A. 123 (West Supp.1995).

Under Texas law, the Indiana court has “continuing, exclusive jurisdiction” over the subject matter of this suit. Tex.Fam. Code Ann. § 21.08(d) (Vernon Supp.1994). Although the Texas court had authority to register and enforce the Indiana order, it did not have authority to modify that order. *Id.*at § 21.37(c).

Where the Indiana court had continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of this suit, the Texas court was without jurisdiction to enter a default judgment.

We sustain the third point of error making it unnecessary to address the appellant’s remaining points.

The default judgment is reversed, and the cause dismissed.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4387 

To provide for the procurement of parts for commercially derived aircraft. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 13, 2022 

Ms. DUCKWORTH introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To provide for the procurement of parts for commercially 

derived aircraft. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Improving Military 

5 Aviation Readiness Act of 2022’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROCUREMENT OF PARTS FOR COMMERCIALLY DE7 RIVED AIRCRAFT. 

8 The Secretary of the Air Force and the Secretary of 

9 the Navy shall— 

10 (1) include FAA-certified airworthy used, over11 hauled, reconditioned, and remanufactured commerVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:12 Jun 17, 2022 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S4387.IS S4387

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4387 IS

1 cial common/dual use parts, except for life limited 

2 parts, in supply chain solutions to provide for re3 placement or increased inventories for all Depart4 ment of Defense commercial derivative aircraft and 

5 engines and aircraft that are based on commercial 

6 design; and 

7 (2) ensure that the acquisition of all follow-on 

8 used, overhauled, reconditioned, and remanufactured 

9 commercial common/dual use parts under paragraph 

10 (1) is conducted on a competitive basis, based on 

11 price and quality, and procured only from suppliers 

12 who provide FAA-certified parts that possess a FAA 

13 Authorized Release Certificate, FAA Form 8130–3 

14 Airworthy Approval Tag from certificated repair sta15 tions pursuant to part 145 of title 14, Code of Fed16 eral Regulations. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 66 (Thursday, April 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 17538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8516]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
[Docket No. 94F-0121]


BASF Corp.; Withdrawal of Food Additive Petition

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the 
withdrawal, without prejudice to a future filing, of a food additive 
petition (FAP 3B4384) proposing that the food additive regulations be 
amended to provide for the safe use of hydroxypropyl acrylate and 
butanediol diacrylate as monomers in the production of acrylic polymers 
intended for use in food packaging adhesives.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane E. Robertson, Center for Food 
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-216), Food and Drug Administration, 
200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-418-3089.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice published in the Federal 
Register of April 25, 1994 (59 FR 19730), FDA announced that a food 
additive petition (FAP 3B4384) had been filed by BASF Corp., 9401 Arrow 
Point Blvd., suite 200, Charlotte, NC 28273. The petition proposed to 
amend the food additive regulations in Sec. 175.105 Adhesives (21 CFR 
175.105) to provide for the safe use of hydroxypropyl acrylate and 
butanediol diacrylate as monomers in the production of acrylic polymers 
intended for use in food packaging adhesives. BASF Corp. has now 
withdrawn the petition without prejudice to a future filing (21 CFR 
171.7).

    Dated: March 22, 1995.
Eugene C. Coleman,
Acting Director, Office of Premarket Approval, Center for Food Safety 
and Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 95-8516 Filed 4-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 26, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-5319

ECM Industries 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 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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5747

Kyungshin Lear Sales and Engineering 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 concerns a product strategically important or related to 

“Made in China 2025” or other Chinese industrial programs.

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 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 302(a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Jacob Even-Ezra:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Magal Security Systems
Ltd.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls
or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: June 27, 2003


/s/ Jacob Even-Ezra *
----------------------------
Jacob Even-Ezra

Chief Executive Officer

*     The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at
      the Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon
      request.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Brent R. HAMM, Appellant.

No. WD 43292.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 30, 1991.

Brent R. Hamm, Moberly pro se.

Randall W. Shackelford, Sp. Asst. Pros. Atty., Lexington, for respondent.

Before NUGENT, C.J., P.J., SHANGLER, GAITAN and FENNER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a misdemeanor conviction in a court-tried case. Appellant was charged with following another vehicle too closely, in violation of § 304.017 RSMo 1986. The judgment of the court was a fine of $35.00 and costs.

The appeal is dismissed.

On appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred by not informing him of his right to a jury trial. However, we do not reach this issue because the appeal is moot. The legal file indicates that, following his conviction, appellant paid his fine and costs without first filing his appeal or an appeal bond, and without making any record that the payment was made under protest or that it was made with any reservations.

Therefore, pursuant to *State v. Welch,*701 S.W.2d 770 (Mo.App.1985), we dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction because of the voluntary payment of the fine and costs before appeal. Under these circumstances, the state is no longer an interested party and the issues are moot. *Id.*at 771. In order to preserve any issue for appeal in a criminal case where the sentence consists of a fine and costs, the defendant must make payment of the fine under circumstances that record the payment as not voluntarily made, if payment occurs before appeal. *Id.*

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
DEMAND NOTE


$__________________                                             __________, 1997


On demand, U.S. Wireless Data, Inc. ("Borrower), for value received, jointly and
severally  promises to pay to the order of  ____________________  ("Holder") the
sum of  _______________________  ($___________)  together with interest  thereon
from the date hereof until paid at the rate of 10% per annum.

The holder, in lieu of cash payment,  may exercise on or after November 1, 1997,
the right to purchase -shares of the common stock of U.S. Wireless Date, Inc. at
a price of $_______ per share for any or all of the  outstanding  principal  and
accrued interest.

If, by April 11, 1998, the Holder have not exercised their aforementioned rights
to purchase  shares of common  stock In U.S.  Wireless  Data,  Inc.  and has not
previously  been paid in full,  the  outstanding  principal and interest due the
issuer will be paid in full no later than April 11, 1998.

This note shall be  construed  and enforced in  accordance  with the laws of the
State of Colorado.

Borrower:



-------------------------------
U.S. Wireless Data, Inc.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THIS ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,295,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,909,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   527,000
<INVENTORY>                                  3,121,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,347,000
<PP&E>                                      26,314,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              10,893,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,880,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,056,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,000
<COMMON>                                        55,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,446,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,880,000
<SALES>                                      1,642,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            88,856,000
<CGS>                                          981,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               92,564,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             275,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,791,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,286,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,505,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,505,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.48)


</TABLE>
Order entered June 26, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00481-CV

DAVID BARNES, Appellant

V.

KATHERINE KINSER, JONATHAN BATES, AND KINSER & BATES, LLP, Appellees

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-01550-F

ORDER

Before the Court is appellees’ June 25, 2019 agreed motion for extension of time to file 

their responsive brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief be filed no later than July 

31, 2019.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

**SUBSIDIARIES (as of December 14, 2007) OF REGISTRANT**

MegaBingo, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

MGAM Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

MGAM Services, LLC, a Delawarelimited liability company 

Innovative Sweepstakes Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

MGAM Systems International, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

Megabingo International, LLC, a Delaware limited liabilitycompany 

Multimedia Games de México 1 S. de R.L. de C.V., a Mexican entity 

Servicios de Wild Basin S. de R.L. de C.V., a Mexican entity
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Juan Marrero, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Linakis, J.), rendered January 4, 1989, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and possession of burglar’s tools, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The testimony adduced at trial established that the defendant sat down next to the complainant on a subway train in Queens County. While the complainant was dozing, he felt his wallet move in the pocket of his jeans. He immediately awoke and observed the defendant jump to his feet. The defendant asked the complainant whether the train was going to Manhattan. When the complainant replied in the negative, the defendant ran off the train. The complainant then observed that his pocket had been slit and his wallet taken. He and his brother ran off the train and pursued the defendant. The defendant got on another eastbound train and the complainant and his brother followed him from car to car. The defendant again got off and on the train, but did not succeed in eluding the brothers who continued to follow him. The complainant asked a conductor to call the police. The defendant then sat down, took the complainant’s wallet from his jacket pocket and handed it to the complainant saying: "I picked that up, now you have your wallet back and you didn’t lose anything”. The complainant took the wallet from the defendant. However, when the train pulled into the Main Street Flushing station and the defendant ran, the complainant, his brother and some other passengers chased him. They surrounded him on the subway platform. At the approach of a police officer the defendant threw a "stack” of newspapers he had been carrying into a garbage can. The arresting officer immediately recovered a "razor knife” from within "the fold” of the newspapers.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence, with respect to each count of which he was convicted, was direct as well as circumstantial. Therefore, the trial court was correct in refusing to give a circumstantial evidence charge *(People v*Barnes, 50 NY2d 375, 380).

We have considered the defendant’s further contention with respect to the trial court’s refusal to charge petit larceny as a lesser included offense of grand larceny in the fourth degree *721and find that on the facts of this case, there was no reasonable view of the evidence which would support a finding that the defendant committed petit larceny but not grand larceny in the fourth degree *(see,*CPL 300.50; *People v Glover,*57 NY2d 61, 64; *People v Green,*56 NY2d 427). Brown, J. P., Hooper, Eiber and O’Brien, JJ., concur.