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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 700

To reduce temporarily the duty on potassium sorbate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 5, 2005

Mr. LAUTENBERG introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL

To reduce temporarily the duty on potassium sorbate.

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

3 SECTION 1. POTASSIUM SORBATE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of Chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.29.11 Potassium Sorbate 

(CAS No. 24634–61–

5) (provided for in subheading 2916.19.10) ... 1.4% No change No change On or before 12/

31/2008 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 
•S 700 IS 

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

2 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
Skip to main content An icon that symbolizes the United States Department of Transportation logo. United States Department of Transportation
        Report a Safety Problem

  Toggle navigation
      National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationNational Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationHomepage

    Ratings
                                Recalls
                                Risky Driving
                                Road Safety
                                Vehicle Safety
      
            More Info

                      Briefing Room
          
                        
            Importing a Vehicle
          
                                      
            
            Data
          
                        
            Research
          
                        
            Laws & Regulations
          
                    
                      Vehicle Manufacturers
                      State Governments
                      Enforcement & Justice GM-Denial of Consolidated Petition


Download file: GM-Denial of Consolidated Petition
 NHTSA Information
              
              About NHTSA
          Careers & Internships
          Contact Us
          Recall Information
          Report a Safety ProblemInformation For
              
              Vehicle Manufacturers
          State Governments
          Enforcement & JusticeNHTSA Sites
              
        SaferCar App
          TrafficSafetyMarketing.gov
          EMS.gov
          911.gov
            Website Information
              
        Web Policies & Notices
          Accessibility
          FOIA
          Privacy Policy
          Information Quality
          Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
          No Fear Act Data
          Ethics
          Civil Rights
          Office of Inspector General
          OIG Hotline
          BusinessUSA
          USA.gov
          WhiteHouse.gov

            National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
              1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
                Washington, D.C. 20590
              888-327-4236888-275-9171 (TTY)
              Twitter
                LinkedIn
                Facebook
                Youtube
                Instagram
        Submit Feedback >
January 20, 2016 

Otto Matheke 

Director, Office of Defects Investigation 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Re: TK Holdings Inc. Declaration of PSAN Phase Out Compliance 

Dear Mr. Matheke: 

 Pursuant to Paragraphs 26.b. and 52 of the November 3, 2015 Consent Order between 

NHTSA and TK Holdings Inc. (“TKH”), I hereby certify that TKH has met the Consent Order’s 

December 31, 2015 deadline governing the incremental phase out of the manufacture and sale of 

non-desiccated phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate (“PSAN”) inflators. As of December 31, 

2015, less than 50 percent of the driver inflators supplied by TKH or its affiliates for use in the 

United States are non-desiccated PSAN inflators, as determined by TKH in accordance with the 

terms and requirements of Paragraph 26.b. of the Consent Order. 

 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on 

January 20, 2016. 

 Sincerely, 

 

 Kevin M. Kennedy 

 President, TK Holdings Inc. 

cc: Frank Borris, Associate Administrator for Enforcement 

 Timothy H. Goodman, Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation and Enforcement 

 John D. Buretta, Independent Monitor 

TK HOLDINGS INC.

2500 Takata Drive

Auburn Hills, MI 48326 USA

Kevin M. Kennedy

President

TEL 248-373-8040

FAX 248-377-2040
#### In the Matter of Daniel Williams, Appellant, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

Submitted August 16, 2010;

decided October 26, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal granted. Motion for poor person relief granted.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consentto the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (Nos. 333-97063, 333-06419, 333-41321, 333-85105, 333-107738, 333-127163, 333-143820, and 333-160313) on Form S-8 and Registration Statements (Nos. 333-38105, 333-46395, and 333-142523) onForm S-3 of Epicor Software Corporation of our reports dated March 12, 2010, relating to our audits of the consolidated financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K ofEpicor Software Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2009. Our report dated March 12, 2010, relating to the consolidated financial statements expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to achange in method of accounting for convertible debt. 

*/s/*  McGladrey & Pullen, LLP 

Irvine, California 

March 12, 2010
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

TRAVIS ANTHONY KELLEY,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. '

'

'

'

'

' No. 08

- 11

- 00045

- CR

Appeal from

396th District Court

of Tarrant County, Texas

(TC # 1156916D)

O P I N I O N

Travis Anthony Kelley appeals his conviction of injury to an elderly person

. Appellant

waived his right to a jury trial and entered an open plea of guilty to the trial court. The court

found Appellant guilty and assessed his punishment at imprisonment for a term of twenty

- five

years. We affirm

.

App ellant’s court

- appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded that the

appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v.

California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, reh. denied , 388 U.S . 924, 87 S.Ct.

2094, 18 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record

demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State

,

573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978); Currie v. State , 516 S. W.2d 684 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974);

Jackson v. State , 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex.Crim.App. 1972); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137

(Tex.Crim.App. 1969). Counsel delivered a copy of his brief to Appellant and advised Appellant

of his right to examine the appellate rec ord and file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

The Court has carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief in its entirety, and agrees- 2

-

that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that

mi ght arguably warrant an appeal. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

May 23, 2012

________________________________________________ ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Antcliff, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                        5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Equivest
Finance, Inc. and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>


<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                  JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                    SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                            5,894,664
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   174,215,237
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (6,813,676)
<INVENTORY>                                      60,879,922
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          0
<PP&E>                                           11,223,223
<DEPRECIATION>                                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  285,794,246
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     0
<BONDS>                                         199,579,037
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                30,000
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                            256,884
<OTHER-SE>                                       62,433,485
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    285,794,246
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 27,166,455
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    17,554,703
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    620,599
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                4,004,357
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   4,986,796
<INCOME-TAX>                                      2,075,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               2,911,796
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                      2,911,796
<EPS-BASIC>                                           .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           .11


</TABLE>
[922 NE2d 897, 895 NYS2d 308]

#### Larry C. Holly et al., Respondents, v County of Chautauqua et al., Appellants.

Decided January 19, 2010

*932APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Hodgson Russ LLP,*Buffalo *(Ryan K. Cummings*of counsel), for appellants.

*Lipsitz Green Scime Cambria LLP,*Buffalo *{John A. Collins*of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be reversed, with costs, and plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment as to liability on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim denied. The certified question should be answered in the negative.

While we agree with the Appellate Division that there are no questions of fact regarding proximate cause, triable issues of fact do exist as to whether the scaffolding defendants supplied provided proper protection under Labor Law § 240 (1) *(see Blake v Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City,*1 NY3d 280, 288 [2003]; *Davis v Brunswick, 52*AD3d 1231, 1232 [4th Dept 2008]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, etc.
DEVON CURRIE

,

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. 1D 17

- 329

_____________________________/

Opinion filed October 3, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Angela C. Dempsey , Judge

.

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and David A. Davis, Assistant Public Defender,
Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jason W. Rodriguez, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WINOKUR

, JAY

, an d M.K. THOMAS

, J J

. , CONCUR.
An official website of the United States government
          Here’s how you know
        Here’s how you know**Official websites use .gov**A
              **.gov** website belongs to an official government
              organization in the United States.
        **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**A
              **lock** (
              Locked padlock icon) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.
 Top Utility Nav
        
        
        Asian-Language Resources
        
        Portal en español


Site search Breadcrumb

Health Topics in Asian Languages


EnglishEspañol繁體中文한국어tiếng Việt





妊娠、哺乳和骨骼健康(Pregnancy, Breastfeeding, and Bone Health) FacebookEmailPrintFacebookEmail
              下載PDF
      
            Image
              Pregnant woman reclining

            妊娠和哺乳會如何影響女性的骨骼?由於要支持胎兒發育和出生之後的寶寶成長,身體在妊娠和哺乳期間需要大量的鈣。還有一些需要的鈣是透過名為骨重建的過程(請參見《什麼是骨頭》)來自孕產婦的骨骼,尤其是在孕晚期和哺乳期間。孕期和哺乳期女性需要多少鈣才能維護骨骼健康?女性在妊娠或哺乳時需要的鈣量並沒有發生變化。對14-18歲少女的建議量是一天1300毫克。超過18歲的女性每天應該獲取1000毫克的鈣。從食物或補充劑中獲取超過建議量的鈣並不能防止孕期或哺乳期骨骼鈣的流失。因此,這個時期獲取更多的鈣對女性損失多少骨量影響不大。想要服用鈣補充劑的孕期和哺乳期女性應該諮詢醫療服務提供者。儘管孕期和哺乳期出現骨密度下降是正常現象,但在非常罕見的情況下,孕期和哺乳期女性可患上骨質疏鬆症。骨質疏鬆症會造成骨頭變得脆弱,增加骨折風險。這些女性可發生自發性骨折,或者因為正常活動(產生的創傷或壓力微不足道)造成骨折。脊柱骨折是有骨質疏鬆症的孕期或哺乳期女性最常見的骨折,但她們也可能發生其他類型的骨折。某些骨折病例中的孕產婦患有已知病症,或者在服用會增加骨質疏鬆症和骨折風險的藥物。妊娠和哺乳對骨骼有哪些長期影響?在孕期和哺乳期,骨密度出現暫時性下降是正常現象。但在妊娠之後和斷奶期間/之後,骨密度通常會恢復正常。近期一些大型研究顯示,妊娠和哺乳與日後骨質疏鬆症或骨折的風險增加無關。本文內容由關節炎、肌肉骨骼及皮膚疾病國家研究院(NIAMS)在以下部門的協助下編制國家衰老研究院(英文)糖尿病、消化系統疾病和腎病國家研究院(英文)NIH女性健康研究辦公室(英文)

                              FacebookEmailPrintFacebookEmail
                                    下載PDF
      
                  Related Information
                鈣和維他命D:對骨骼健康至關重要 (Calcium and Vitamin D: Important for Bone Health)
          兒童骨骼健康 (Kids and Their Bones)
            
                        View/Download/Order Publications
                Download this topic as a PDF        

      FacebookEmailPrintFacebookEmail
          Last Reviewed: 
            May 2023
 About NIAMS
                    Clinical Trials
                    Grants & Funding
                    Health Topics
                    Labs @ NIAMS
              News Room
                    NIAMS Multimedia Library
                    Disclaimer
                    FOIA
                    Contact us
              Privacy Statement
                    Accessibility
                    HHS Vulnerability Disclosure
                    Social Media Moderation Policy
                    NIAMS Archives
        Subscribe to Our E-Newsletters
            Click the button to see different options to sign up for newsletters.
            Click Here to Subscribe
          Follow us on
  
  About NIH
                  Accessibility Support
            FOIA requests
                  No FEAR Act data
            Office of the Inspector General
                  Performance reports
            Privacy Policy 回到頁首
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

CHARLES SMITH
, Appellant,

v.

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOAN SERVICING, LP, TERRELL SMITH,
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS
INCORPORATED AS NOMINEE FOR COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL

CORPORATION and SARACENO WEST COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 17

- 2642

[ May 3, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Joel T. Lazarus , Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE09011197

.

Charles Smith, Plantatio n, pro se.

Shakiva Brown of Phelan Hallinan Diamond & Jones, PLLC, Fort Lauderdale, for A ppellee Countrywide Home Loans Servicing L.P

.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER
, G ROSS and T AYLOR
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<PAGE>

                                    Exhibit 10.7
                                          
                              RICHEY ELECTRONICS, INC.


                                          
                                  October 1, 1998

Mr. Charles Mann
7441 Lincoln Way
Garden Grove, CA 92642


               Re:  Employment Agreement
                    --------------------

Dear Chuck:

          Reference is made to the Employment Agreement dated as of April 1,
1995 (the "Employment Agreement"), between you and Richey Electronics, Inc. (the
"Company").

          The Company hereby notifies you pursuant to Section 2 of the
Employment Agreement that your employment under the Employment Agreement shall
terminate upon the expiration of the current Additional Two-Year Period (as
defined in the Employment Agreement) on April 1, 1999.

                              
                              Very truly yours,

                              /s/ Donald I. Zimmerman
                              -----------------------
                              Donald I. Zimmerman
                              Chairman of the Compensation
                              Committee

Receipt Acknowledged


/s/ Charles Mann
----------------
Charles Mann
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  News & Events 
-  NIDCD Calendar of Events 

# NDCD Advisory Council Meeting: September 2024

Event Date: 

Time: 

Lecture Series: National Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Advisory Council (NDCD) Meetings

January 4, 2024
The District Court of the 4th Judicial District. County of Missoula.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. BRUCE DENNISON, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-99-13726 DECISION

On January 6, 2010, the defendant was sentenced to ten (10) years in the Montana State Prison for violation of the conditions of a suspended sentence, for the offense of Count I: Forgery, a felony.

On May 6,2010, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Kara Docherty. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the *38Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 6 th day of May, 2010.

DATED this 26th day of May, 2010.

Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Member, Hon. Ray Dayton.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that 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 Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 7, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-41196 Summary Calendar

ERIC A. SHARPE, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus UNITED STATES ARMY; STEVE LANGFORD, Respondents-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:02-CV-344

-------------------- Before JOLLY, JONES, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Eric Sharpe is serving a 20-year sentence following a court-martial conviction for drug trafficking. He filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking to overturn his conviction and to recover compensatory damages including back-pay and allowances. The district court transferred the action to the Court of Federal Claims. Sharpe seeks to appeal the transfer order.No. 03-41196 -2- The transfer order is not an appealable final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor a certified appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. 1292. See Persyn v. United States , 935 F.2d 69, 72 (5th Cir. 1991). Neither is it appealable under the collateral order doctrine. See Brinar v. Williamson , 245 F.3d 515, 516-18 (5th Cir. 2001); Stelly v. Employers Nat’l Ins. Co. , 431 F.2d 1251, 1253 (5th Cir. 1970). We therefore lack appellate jurisdiction, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
DISMISSED.
Exhibit 11.1

                             EQUIVEST FINANCE, INC.
                        Computation of Earnings Per Share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                For the Quarter Ended March 31, 1999
                                ------------------------------------

                                                 Income          Shares      Per-Share
                                               (Numerator)    (Denominator)   Amount
                                               -----------    -------------   ------
<S>                                           <C>             <C>              <C>
Net Income                                    $ 1,606,684
Less: Preferred Stock dividends                  (150,000)
                                              -----------

Basic earnings per share:
  Income available to common stockholders       1,456,684      25,203,795      $.06
                                                                               ====
Effect of dilutive securities:                                                 
  Warrants                                                         99,538
  Stock options                                                   464,476
                                                ---------      ----------

Diluted earnings per share:                                                    
  Income available to common stockholders                                      
    plus assumed conversions                  $ 1,456,684      25,767,809      $.06
                                              ===========     ===========      ====

<CAPTION>
                                For the Quarter Ended March 31, 1998
                                ------------------------------------

                                                 Income          Shares      Per-Share
                                               (Numerator)    (Denominator)   Amount
                                               -----------    -------------   ------
<S>                                           <C>             <C>              <C>
Net Income                                    $1,451,998
Less: Preferred Stock dividends                 (150,454)

Basic earnings per share:
  Income available to common stockholders      1,301,544       21,845,505      $.06
                                                                               ----
Effect of dilutive securities:
  12.5% Redeemable Convertible preferred stock       454           13,621
  Warrants                                                         83,887
  Stock options                                                   359,379
                                              ----------      -----------

Diluted earnings per share:
  Income available to common stockholders
    plus assumed conversions                  $1,301,998       22,302,392      $.06
                                              ==========      ===========      ====
</TABLE>


                                       21