alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19400-19401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9485]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 19401]]

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES


Notice of Open Special Meeting of the Advisory committee of the 
Export-Import Bank of the United States

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee was established by P.L. 98-181, 
November 30, 1983, to advise the Export-Import Bank on its programs and 
to provide comments for inclusion in the reports of the Export-Import 
Bank to the United States Congress.

TIME AND PLACE: Thursday, April 27, 1995, at 9:30 a.m. to 12:00 noon. 
The meeting will be held at EX-IM Bank in Room 1143, 811 Vermont Avenue 
NW., Washington, D.C. 20571.

AGENDA: The meeting agenda will include a discussion of the following 
topics: Advisory Committee Role and Responsibilities; Small Business 
Overview, Accomplishments and Challenges; and Other Topics/Next Steps.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: The meeting will be open to public participation; 
and the last 10 minutes will be set aside for oral questions or 
comments. Members of the public may also file written statement(s) 
before or after the meeting. In order to permit the Export-Import Bank 
to arrange suitable accommodations, members of the public who plan to 
attend the meeting should notify Barbara Lane, Room 1112, 811 Vermont 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20571, (202) 565-3957, not later than April 
26, 1995. If any person wishes auxiliary aids (such as a sign language 
interpreter) or other special accommodations, please contact, prior to 
April 20, 1995, Barbara Lane, Room 1112, 811 Vermont Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20571, Voice: (202) 565-3957 or TDD: (202) 565-3377.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information contact 
Barbara Lane, Room 1112, 811 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. 
20571, (202) 565-3957.
Carol F. Lee,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 95-9485 Filed 4-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-M
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Money Tree Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended December 25, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Bradley D. Bellville, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Steven P. Morrison, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of The
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



|(1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities 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 Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                         
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------
|Date: December 12, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Bradley D. Bellville
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | Bradley D. Bellville    
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer 
|                        |  |  | 
|Date: December 12, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Steven P. Morrison  
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | Steven P. Morrison      
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
Organization Name:

Note: Representatives submitting on behalf of an organization must enter information below.

Requestor Representative:

Section 301 Investigation: China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology 

Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation - Form to Request Exclusion of Product

When submitting a product exclusion request using this form, enter the specified 

information in the following fields and explain the basis and rationale for your statements. 

By completing this form, you certify that the information provided is complete and 

correct to the best of your knowledge. 

1. Indicate whether the comment contains business confidential information (BCI), is a public

document, or is a public version of a BCI document.

3.

2. Please provide a complete and detailed description of the product of concern:

4.

5. Requestor's relationship to the product:

CONTINUED BELOW

*

10-digit HTSUS item number* for product you wish to address in this product exclusion request:

Use numerical characters only with no special characters (example: 1023456789). For help in finding 

the HTSUS item number associated with your product, see https://hts.usitc.gov/

1

7.

6. Does this submission in regulations.gov include additional attachments?

Please indicate whether any additional attachment contains business confidential

information (BCI), is a public document, or is a public version of a BCI document.

VERSION 1

Requestor Information

Requestor Name (Last, First):

Public Version of BCI

XA11, Air Driven Hydraulic Pump, 3/3 Valve, 61 in3 Usable Oil, For use with Single-Acting Cylinder 

or Tool; Maximum Operating Pressure psi: 10000; Weight Lbs: 19; 30 - 120: 30 - 125; Hydraulic Pump 

Hydraulic to Air Ratio: 

8413500070 Schmidt, Jackie Enerpac Jackie SchmidtImporter Yes Contains BCI
END 2

8. Is this product, or a comparable product, available from sources in the United States?:

VERSION 1

11. Please provide information in support your request, taking account of the instructions

provided in Section B of the Federal Register notice (note: text entered below can extend

beyond the apparent size of this box).

9. Is this product, or a comparable product, available from sources in third countries?:

10. Please provide the value and quantity (with units) of the Chinese-origin product of concern

that you purchased for each calendar year specified. Limit this figure to the products

purchased by your firm (or by members of your trade association) alone. Please provide 

estimates if precise figures are unavailable.

2016 Value:

2015 Value:

2017 Value:

2016 Quantity:

2015 Quantity:

2017 Quantity:

No No BCI BCI BCI BCI BCI BCI

See addendum for additional information.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IN RE: AXCESS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Appellant

______________________ 

2016-1430

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 90/012,363.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

MICHAEL J. MARCIN, Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP, New 

York, NY, argued for appellant.

 PHILIP J. WARRICK, Office of the Solicitor, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, 

argued for appellee Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by 

NATHAN K. KELLEY, BENJAMIN T. HICKMAN. 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 
 

 PER CURIAM (O’MALLEY, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 November 3, 2016 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner 

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
#### STATE of Missouri, ex rel., Max PINKUS, Appellant, v. MISSOURI STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY, Respondent.

No. 62309.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

June 1, 1993.

George W. Wynne, Jr., Clayton, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Kara Johnson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before GARY M. GAERTNER, P.J., and SMITH and STEPHAN, JJ.

ORDER

Appellant, Max Pinkus, appeals from an order of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County affirming a Disciplinary Order issued by respondent, the Missouri State Board of Pharmacy, (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”) suspending appellant’s pharmacy license for a period of three years, to be followed by a period of five years’ probation. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the findings and conclusions of the Board are not clearly erroneous. As we further find an extended opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm the circuit court’s order pursuant to Rule 84.-16(b). A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties here involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Rebecca Ulate Garcia

, * From the 70 th District Court

of Ector County

Trial Court No. A

- 41,110

.

Vs. No. 11

- 16

- 00187

- CR * July 12 , 2018

The Sta te of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey

, J.

(Panel consists of: Willson, J.,

Bailey, J. , and Wright, S.C.J.,

s itting by assignment )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there

is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leo McKinnis, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.), both rendered July 11, 1988, convicting him of assault in the first degree under indictment No. 2945/86, and bail jumping in the second degree under indictment No. 7275/86, respectively, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Rubin, Balletta and Miller, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined th a t

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 99-10520

Summary Calendar

__________________

DAVID B. OPENSHAW,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

EEX CORPORATION; ET AL.,

Defendants,

EEX CORPORATION; ENSERCH EXPLORATION, INC.,

Severance Pay Plan; JANICE HARTRICK,

Individually and as Administrator and

Fiduciary of the Severance Plan

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(3:98-CV-1193-H)

_________________________________________________________________ January 27, 2000

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Solely at issue is David B. Openshaw’s challenge to the denial

of a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment.

Openshaw filed this action to recover severance benefits; but

on 15 January 1999, an adverse summary judgment dismissed his

action on the merits. Openshaw filed a series of post-judgment

motions, including the Rule 60(b) motion at issue, all of which- 2 -

were denied. On 30 April 1999, after the Rule 60(b) denial,

Openshaw appealed it and the summary judgment.

In our court, the employer moved to dismiss for lack of

jurisdiction, based on the notice of appeal being untimely. Our

court granted the motion as to the summary judgment, but denied it

concerning the Rule 60(b) denial.

Whether “to grant

... relief under Rule 60(b) lies within the

sound discretion of the district court and will be reversed only

for abuse of that discretion”. E dwards v. City of Houston

, 78 F.3d

983, 995 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc). For the requisite abuse of

discretion, Openshaw contends that the district court made

fundamental errors of law in granting summary judgment by

determ ining the wrong standard for reviewing the severance plan

administrat or’s actions; holding that there was no conflict of

interest on the part of the severance plan administrator; and

determining that Openshaw was not retaliated against under § 510 of

ERISA.

Openshaw’s contentions do not meet the usual criteria of

mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, as listed in

Rule 60(b). Nor under the fundamental misconception of the

governing law basis, read into Rule 60(b), is there any ground for

relief.

Openshaw’s grounds for challengin g the Rule 60(b) denial

appear to be no more than camouflage for his forfeited appeal from

the summary judgment. But, as he recognizes, Rule 60(b) is not a

substitute for a timely appeal.- 3 - AFFIRMED
| 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 WRC Media Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned in his capacity as an officer of WRCMedia Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|   | (1) | Based on the officer’s knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | (2)    | Based on the officer’s knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition, and results of operations of WRC Media Inc. |

Date: March 31, 2005

/s/ RALPH D. CAULO

Ralph D. Caulointerim Chief Executive Officer

/s/ ROBERT S. YINGLING

Robert S. YinglingChief Financial Officer

147

----
rrd134512_16636.html


STRICTLY PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL
6 November 2006

"First_Name" "Surname"
"Department_Name"


Dear "First_Name",
I am writing to confirm that CDT is required to change the Company's policy on retirement age.  This change is necessary to ensure that CDT can comply with amendments to UK employment legislation relating to age discrimination.
Therefore, with effect from 1 December 2006, CDT's retirement age will increase from 60 to 65 years of age.  We will write to you six months in advance of your retirement age to fully inform you of your rights and entitlements at that time, including the right to request to continue working beyond this date should you so wish.  You will be notified formally, in writing, of any further changes in CDT's retirement policy.
All other terms and conditions remain unchanged by this amendment to your retirement age.
Upon accepting this new term, I should be grateful if you would sign the attached copy of this letter as confirmation of your acceptance of this change to your terms and conditions of employment.
If you have any queries, with regards to CDT's retirement policy please do not hesitate to let me know.
Yours sincerely


Helen Quartermaine
HUMAN RESOURCES ADVISOR

I accept the change to my terms and conditions of employment with CDT Ltd, as detailed above.
Signed .....................................................................        Date ......................
                        "First_Name" "Surname"
#### In the Matter of William H. Tschirhart (Admitted as William Henry Tschirhart), an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, Petitioner.

Second Department,

September 24,1990

*2APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Robert H. Straus (Diana Maxfield Kearse*of counsel), for petitioner.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

By order of the Court of Appeals of Maryland dated January 26, 1990, the respondent was disbarred in the State of Maryland, and his name was stricken from the Maryland register of attorneys. The respondent had presented a consent to disbarment to the Court of Appeals of Maryland, dated January 23, 1990, wherein he indicated that he was aware of a pending investigation into his receipt of funds in connection with a real estate settlement, which funds could not be accounted for, and acknowledged that if charges were predicated upon the matters under investigation, he could not successfully defend himself.

On March 9, 1990, the respondent was personally served in the instant proceeding with a notice pursuant to 22 NYCRR

691.3, informing him of his right to interpose certain enumerated defenses to the imposition of discipline in New York.

The respondent has not appeared or interposed defenses. Accordingly, the respondent is disbarred from the practice of law in New York, and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective immediately.

Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Brown, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the petitioner’s motion is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that, effective immediately, pursuant to 22 NYCRR

691.3, the respondent is disbarred from the practice of law in New York; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent shall promptly comply with this court’s rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended and resigned attorneys (22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further,

*3Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law §90, effective immediately, the respondent William H. Tschirhart is commanded to desist and refrain (1) from practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another, (2) from appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission or other public authority, (3) from giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) from holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 76 (Thursday, April 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19750]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9757]



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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Agency for Health Care Policy and Research


Notice of Health Care Policy and Research Special Emphasis Panel 
Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (5 U.S.C., Appendix 2) announcement is made of the following 
special emphasis panel scheduled to meet during the month of May 1995:

    Name: Health Care Policy and Research Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date and Time: May 8-9, 1995, 8:00 a.m.
    Place: Holiday Inn Chevy Chase, 5520 Wisconsin Avenue, Palladian 
East Room, Chevy Chase, MD 20815.
    Open May 8, 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Closed for remainder of 
meeting.
    Purpose: This Panel is charged with conducting review of Health 
Services Research grant applications requesting dissertation 
support.
    Agenda: The open session of the meeting on May 8, from 8:00 a.m. 
to 9:00 a.m. will be devoted to a business meeting covering 
administrative matters. During the closed session, the committee 
will be reviewing Health Services Research grant applications 
requesting dissertation support. In accordance with the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act, section 10(d) of 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2 and 5 
U.S.C., 552b(c)(6), the Administrator, AHCPR, has made a formal 
determination that this latter session will be closed because the 
discussions are likely to reveal personal information concerning 
individuals associated with the grant applications. This information 
is exempt from mandatory disclosure.
    Anyone wishing to obtain a roster of members or other relevant 
information should contact J. Terrell Hoffeld, D.D.S., Ph.D., Agency 
for Health Care Policy and Research, Suite 602, 2101 East Jefferson 
Street, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Telephone (301) 594-1449.
    Agenda items for this meeting are subject to change as 
priorities dictate.

    Dated: April 13, 1995.
Clifton R. Gaus,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-9757 Filed 4-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-90-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         640,803<F1>
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,395,536
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,776,052
<PP&E>                                       1,544,279
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,461,485
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,095,123
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        46,256
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,402,970
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,461,485
<SALES>                                     15,340,060
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,340,060
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               16,131,742
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (91,095)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,225,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             181,878
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,107,465)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (551,857)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,555,608)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,555,608)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.35)
<FN>
<F1>EXCLUDES RESTRICTED CASH OF 313,665
</FN>


</TABLE>
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D2023-2983

Lower Tribunal No. 2017-CC-015403-O

_____________________________

NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,

Appellant, 

v.

SURF CONSULTANTS, INC. and AMII GRIFFIN,

Appellees.

_____________________________

Appeal from the County Court for Orange County.

Tina L. Caraballo, Judge.

August 13, 2024 

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOZNIAK and GANNAM, JJ., and BERLIN, S.D., Associate Judge, concur.

W. Patrick Ayers and Benjamin Coulter, of Burr & Forman, LLP, Tampa, for 

Appellant.

Ryan E. Sprechman, of Sprechman & Fisher, P.A., Miami, for Appellee, Surf 

Consultants, Inc.

No Appearance for Appellee, Amii Griffin. 

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED