alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 10, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 52646]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21027]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION

[A-428-602]

Brass Sheet and Strip from Germany: Amended Notice of Rescission 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 10, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joy Zhang or James Terpstra, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1168 and (202) 482-3965, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 20, 2008, the Department of 
Commerce published Brass Sheet and Strip from Germany: Notice of 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 49170 
(August 20, 2008), in the Federal Register. We are amending this notice 
to correct a typographical error in identifying the period of review. 
The correct period of review is March 1, 2007 through February 29, 
2008.
    This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 
777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: September 4, 2008.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-21027 Filed 9-9-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alexander Jenkins, Appellant.

Appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Goldfluss, J.), rendered December 3, 1979, is held in abeyance, and the matter remanded to the Supreme Court, Bronx County, for a hearing for the limited purpose of determining whether the People’s peremptory challenges to the composition of the jury had a legitimate basis.

When this matter was before us previously, we determined that with respect to the People’s exercise of peremptory challenges, a prima facie case of discrimination was established, calling for the prosecutor to come forward with a neutral explanation for challenging black jurors. *(See, People v Jenkins,*145 AD2d 225.) We would have remitted for a hearing, but due to "the lapse of some nine years since the trial and the improbability of reconstructing the voir dire” *(supra,*at 233), we vacated the judgment and ordered a new trial.

On appeal, it was determined that the matter should be remitted to us as follows: "Because the Appellate Division’s decision was made on the law and it does not appear that the court exercised its factual review powers, the case should be remitted to the Appellate Division for determination of the facts (CPL 470.25 [2] [d]; 470.40 [2] [b]). If on such review, the Appellate Division determines that the judgment of conviction should be affirmed, it should remit to Supreme Court for a *260hearing to afford the People an opportunity to establish nonpretextual race-neutral explanations for the exercise of their peremptory challenges. If such legitimate explanations are not satisfactorily established, the judgment of conviction should be vacated and a new trial ordered. Should it be determined that the prima facie demonstration of racially motivated exercise of peremptory challenges is satisfactorily rebutted, the judgment of conviction should be amended to show that result.” *(People v Jenkins,*75 NY2d 550, 560.) This was somewhat similar to the thinking of Justice Ross who concurred in part and dissented in part in our earlier decision (145 AD2d, *supra,*at 235).

Accordingly, having otherwise decided to affirm, we now remand to the Supreme Court, Bronx County, so that the People may have an opportunity to establish nonpretextual race-neutral explanations for the exercise of their peremptory challenges. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Ross, Carro and Smith, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1997
<CASH>                                          29,500
<SECURITIES>                                     5,600
<RECEIVABLES>                                  524,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                    22,100
<INVENTORY>                                    548,800
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,324,500
<PP&E>                                       2,177,500
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,517,600
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,132,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          707,500
<BONDS>                                        497,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        75,400
<OTHER-SE>                                     562,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,132,300
<SALES>                                        457,500
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               457,500
<CGS>                                          259,800
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  438,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,800
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,800
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Order entered October 26, 2017

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 17
- 00778
- CV D. REGINALD STOVER, JACE HARKEY, ROBERT H. HOLMES AND THE HOLMES LAW F IRM, INC., Appella nt s V. ADM MILLING CO., Appellee On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 13
- 13400



### O RDER Before the Court is the October 24, 2017 motion of appellants Robert H. Holmes and The Holmes Law Firm, Inc. seeking a second extension of time to file appellant’s brief. We GRANT the motion

. Appellants Robert H. Holmes and The Holmes Law Firm, Inc’s brief shall be filed by November 30, 2017. We caution appellants that further requests for extension will be disf avored.

.
/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
exv10w6



 






Exhibit 10.6




PEGASUS SOLUTIONS, INC.




FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT



THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is entered into as of the 7th day of December, 2004,
by and between Pegasus Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Robert J. Boles,
Jr. (the “Executive”).



WHEREAS, the Company and Executive have previously entered into an Employment Agreement with an
effective date of May 19, 2003 (the “Original Employment Agreement”); and



WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has, effective December 7th, 2004, named
Executive as the Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer of the Company replacing his
previous title of Executive Vice President, Marketing and Sales; and



WHEREAS, the Company and Executive wish to amend the Original Employment Agreement to reflect the
new title given to and accepted by Executive;



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the respective agreements of the parties contained herein and
in the Original Employment Agreement and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, it is agreed as follows:





	1.  	Section 2 of the Original Employment Agreement is hereby amended to delete the reference to
“Marketing and Sales” in the title of Executive and to replace it with “Chief Operating
Officer”.
	 
	2.  	The Original Agreement, as amended by this First Amendment to Employment Agreement, is hereby
ratified and confirmed in all respects.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this First Amendment to Employment Agreement to be
executed by its Chairman of the Board or Chairman of the Compensation Committee and the Executive
has executed this First Amendment to Employment Agreement to be effective December 7, 2004.



	PEGASUS
SOLUTIONS, INC.	 	EXECUTIVE:	 
	 
	By:_____________________	 	By:____________________	 
	 
	Print: ____________________	 	 	 
	 
	Title:
____________________
JERRY GALLION,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D13-2905

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 9, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Mallory D. Cooper, Judge.

Jerry Gallion, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Lauren Brudnicki, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Jerry Gallion, appeals an order denying his postconviction relief 

motion which he filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We 

find no error in the trial court’s denial of relief as to Grounds 1, 3, and 6 following 

an evidentiary hearing. However, because the trial court summarily denied 
Grounds 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9 without attaching portions of the record conclusively 

refuting the claims, a fact acknowledged by the State, we reverse and remand with 

instructions that the court either attach such portions of the record or hold an 

evidentiary hearing on the claims. See Wainwright v. State, 896 So. 2d 695, 698 

(Fla. 2004) (noting that a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a 

postconviction relief claim unless the motion and record conclusively show that he 

or she is entitled to no relief or where the claim is legally insufficient); Simmons v. 

State, 66 So. 3d 327, 327-28 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (reversing for record attachments

or for an evidentiary hearing where the trial court failed to assemble a record from 

which it could be conclusively determined that the appellant was not entitled to any 

relief on his facially sufficient rule 3.850 claim); Washington v. State, 10 So. 3d 

1126, 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (“If the postconviction defendant’s claims are 

legally sufficient, the trial court must attach portions of the record that conclusively 

refute the claims.”).

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED with 

instructions.

LEWIS, C.J., VAN NORTWICK and SWANSON, JJ., CONCUR.

2
IA

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 62

Declaring a state of war between the United States and international

terrorists and their sponsors.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 13, 2001

Mr. BARR of Georgia (for himself, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. GOODE, Mr. JONES of

North Carolina, Mr. DEAL of Georgia, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. TANCREDO,

Mr. SCHAFFER, and Mr. SOUDER) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

JOINT RESOLUTION

Declaring a state of war between the United States and

international terrorists and their sponsors.

Whereas international terrorist organizations without provocation staged two separate attacks on the World Trade

Center in New York City, New York and the Pentagon

on September 11, 2001;

Whereas any attack of international terrorism by a foreign

country or entity on the United States or its territories,

possessions, or installations should be considered an act

of war; and

Whereas the Government of the United States should use all

military, intelligence, and financial resources available to
2

•HJ 62 IH

prosecute action against its enemies: Now, therefore, be

it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DECLARATION OF WAR.

4 Pursuant to Article 1, section 8 of the United States

5 Constitution, the Congress hereby declares that a state of

6 war exists between the United States and—

7 (1) any entity that committed the acts of inter8 national terrorism against the United States on Sep9 tember 11, 2001, or commits acts of international

10 terrorism against the United States thereafter; and

11 (2) any country or entity that has provided or

12 provides support or protection for any entity de13 scribed in paragraph (1).

14 The President is hereby authorized and directed to employ

15 the entire naval and military forces of the United States

16 and the resources of the United States Government to

17 carry on war against such entities and countries, and the

18 Congress hereby pledges all the resources of the United

19 States Government in order to bring the conflict to a suc20 cessful termination.
3

•HJ 62 IH

1 SEC. 2. DEFINITION.

2 In this joint resolution, the term ‘‘international ter3 rorism’’ has the meaning given that term in section

4 2331(1) of title 18, United States Code.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7087 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7087

To require inns, hotels, motels, and other establishments that provide 
  lodging to transient guests to include all mandatory fees and other 
charges in the advertised rental rates for such lodging, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 15, 2022

  Mr. Gosar introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require inns, hotels, motels, and other establishments that provide 
  lodging to transient guests to include all mandatory fees and other 
charges in the advertised rental rates for such lodging, 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. LODGING FEE DISCLOSURES.

    (a) In General.--A person who operates an inn, hotel, motel, or 
other establishment that provides lodging to transient guests shall 
include all mandatory fees and other charges in any advertised rental 
rate for such lodging.
    (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not require the inclusion in an 
advertised rental rate of any tax, fee, or other charge assessed, or 
required to be assessed, by a government entity.
    (c) Enforcement.--
            (1) Unfair or deceptive acts or practices.--A violation of 
        this section shall be treated as a violation of a regulation 
        under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act 
        (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)) regarding unfair or deceptive acts or 
        practices.
            (2) Powers of commission.--The Federal Trade Commission 
        shall enforce this section in the same manner, by the same 
        means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as 
        though all applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade 
        Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incorporated into 
        and made a part of this section. Any person who violates this 
        section shall be subject to the penalties and entitled to the 
        privileges and immunities provided in the Federal Trade 
        Commission Act.
    (d) Mandatory Defined.--In this section, the term ``mandatory'' 
means, with respect to a fee or other charge assessed in connection 
with the rental of lodging, that the fee or other charge must be paid 
as a condition of renting such lodging.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000079732
<NAME> POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY
<SUBSIDIARY>
   <NUMBER> 1
   <NAME> POTOMAC CAPITAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    4,475,000
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         448,000
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       670,700
<OTHER-ASSETS>                               1,038,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,631,700
<COMMON>                                       118,500
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                    1,011,600
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            721,900
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               1,852,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           50,000
<PREFERRED>                                    100,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,963,800
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  207,600
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                    156,900
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                20,800
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               2,280,600<F1>
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                6,631,700
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      429,000
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             5,000
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     379,700
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     384,700
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         44,300
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                              19,600
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  63,900
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        37,900
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      2,000
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   24,000
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        49,200
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      155,000<F2>
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          83,300
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.20<F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.20
<FN>
<F1>Includes mandatorily redeemable preferred securities of subsidiary trust.
<F2>Total annualized interest costs for all utility long-term debt and 
mandatorily redeemable preferred securities of subsidiary trust outstanding 
at March 31, 1999.
<F3>Basic earnings per share for the three months ended March 31, 1999 were 
$0.20.  Diluted earnings per share for the three months ended March 31, 1999 
were $0.20.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                                                  Exhibit 32.2

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350*


In connection with the Quarterly Report of PGI Incorporated (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Laurence A.
Schiffer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:


(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
      15(d), as applicable, 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/ Laurence A. Schiffer
---------------------------------------------------------
    Laurence A. Schiffer
    Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer      November 13, 2009


<FN>
* A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company
  and will be retained by the Company and will be furnished to the Securities
  and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Natale Albanese, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), rendered May 9, 1989, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the court erred in vacating his prior plea of guilty upon the People’s application. By subsequently pleading guilty, the defendant effectively waived his right to appellate review of this issue *(see, People v Boyce,*150 AD2d 471; *People v Guerrero,*140 AD2d 456). Moreover, we do not choose to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction because the defendant negotiated an extremely favorable plea agreement that substantially reduced his sentencing exposure. The court also conducted a detailed inquiry to ensure that the defendant understood his plea was conditioned upon his admitting that he was a predicate felon. The defendant made a voluntary and knowing waiver of his right to controvert the predicate felony statement. Accordingly, the interest of justice would not be served by vacating the plea and reinstating the original plea of guilty. Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.