alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 118 (Monday, June 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29470-29471]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14623]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS


Cancellation of Electronic Visa Information System (ELVIS) and 
Quota Reporting Requirements for Textiles and Textile Products Produced 
or Manufactured in the People's Republic of China and Exported prior to 
January 1, 2009

June 16, 2009.
AGENCY: Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).

ACTION: Issuing a directive to the Commissioner, U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection canceling all previous directives concerning ELVIS 
and quota reporting requirements for China.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria D'Andrea, Office of Textiles and 
Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-4058.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority: Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended; 
Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 
1854).

    Effective on July 1, 2009, the United States is terminating the 
ELVIS transmission requirement and quota reporting requirements for 
goods exported from China prior to January 1, 2009. In a notice and 
letter published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2008 (see 73 
FR 75085), the United States canceled all previous directives 
concerning requirements for ELVIS transmissions effective for goods 
exported from China prior to January 1, 2009. This action is consistent 
with the terms of the bilateral agreement on textiles and apparel 
between the Governments of the United States of America and the 
People's Republic of China that was signed on November 8, 2005 (see 70 
FR 74777).
    In the letter below, CITA instructs U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection to

[[Page 29471]]

cancel all requirements for ELVIS transmission and quota reporting for 
goods exported from China prior to January 1, 2009.

Maria D'Andrea,
Acting Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile 
Agreements.

Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements

June 16, 2009.

Commissioner,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Washington, DC 20229.
    Dear Commissioner: Effective on July 1, 2009, you are directed 
to cancel all requirements for ELVIS transmissions and quota 
reporting for goods exported from China prior to January 1, 2009.
    The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has 
determined that this action falls within the foreign affairs 
exception to the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
    Sincerely,
Maria D'Andrea,
Acting Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile 
Agreements.
[FR Doc. E9-14623 Filed 6-19-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS
Exhibit 31.1

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

I, Jeffrey Binder, certify that: 

1.           I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of Fearless International, Inc.; 

2.           Based on my knowledge, this 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 suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

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

4.           The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the smallbusiness issuer and have: 

           a.           Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer,  including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared; 

           b.           Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; 

           c.           Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer'sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and 

5.           The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committeeof the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

           a.           All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and 

           b.           Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.
MANDATE

Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-14-00052-CR

DONTA TREMAINE BROWNING, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 240th District Court of Fort Bend County. 

(Tr. Ct. No. 11-DCR-058541).

TO THE 240TH DISTRICT COURT OF FORT BEND COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court, on the 26th day of February 2015, the case upon appeal to revise 

or to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by 

the trial court on December 11, 2013. After submitting the case 

on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by 

the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment 

contains no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms 

the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below 

for observance.

Judgment rendered February 26, 2015.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Brown and 
Lloyd. Opinion delivered by Justice Brown.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in 

this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

July 13, 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

 CLERK OF THE COURT
Order entered July 30 , 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 00613

- CV

ENVISION REALTY GROU P, LLC AND JACKSON P OTTER, AND THEIR

ATTORNEY DAVID J. PO TTER, Appellant s

V.

CHUAN C. CHEN, Appellee

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 17

- 16534

- G



### O RDER

The reporter’s record in this appeal is past due. By postcard dated June 1 1 , 2018, we
notified Court Reporte r Vielica Dobbins the reporter’s record was overdue. To date, the
reporter’s record has not been filed nor has Ms. Dobbins otherwise corresponded with the Court
regarding the reporter’s record.

Accordingly, we ORDER Vielica Dobbins, Official Court R eporter for the 134th Judicial

District Court, to file, within TEN DAYS of the date of this order either (1) the reporter’s record;

(2) written verification no hearings were recorded; or (3) written verification that appellant s ha ve
not paid for or made ar rangements to pay for the record. 1 We notify appellant s that if we receive

1 Our record s show appellants requested the reporter’s record on June 5, 2018.verification they ha ve not paid for or made arrangements to pay for the reporter’s record, we

may order the appeal submitted without the reporter’s record. See Tex. R. App. P. 37. 3(c).

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to:
Honorable Dale Tillery Presiding Judge 134th Judicial District Court

Vielica Dobbins Official Court Reporter 134th Judicial District Court
All parties

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Jimmie Donald Hill, Appellant

No. 06

- 19

- 00215

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 71st District Court of Harrison County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 19

- 0246X ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the judgment

of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment by replacing “SECOND

DEGREE FELONY” under “Degree of Offense” with “ THIRD DEGREE FELONY

. ” As

modified, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

We note that the appellant, Jimmie Donald Hill, has adequately indicated his inabili ty to

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED APRIL 21, 2020

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
EX-10.7



 Exhibit 10.7 
 AMENDMENT TO STOCK OPTIONS AND STOCK APPRECIATION RIGHTS UNDER THE GENWORTH FINANCIAL, INC. OMNIBUS INCENTIVE PLANS 
 Effective as of July 1, 2013, the Management Development and Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Genworth Financial, Inc. (the “Company”) approved an amendment to all
outstanding stock options and stock appreciation rights granted under the 2004 Genworth Financial, Inc. Omnibus Incentive Plan and the 2012 Genworth Financial, Inc. Omnibus Incentive Plan to provide that upon a voluntary termination under certain
circumstances, any vested portion of such awards would remain outstanding and exercisable for up to 90 days following such termination, rather than expiring immediately upon such termination. 
 Accordingly, if, on or after the first anniversary of the grant date of such awards, a holder’s employment with the Company terminates as a result of the holder’s voluntary termination and such
awards would otherwise have immediately expired upon such termination, any unvested portion of such awards shall expire immediately upon such termination, and any vested and unexercised portion of such awards shall expire on the earlier of
(i) 90 days after the date of such voluntary termination or (ii) the regular expiration date of such awards.
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 on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2005 of Blue Ridge Real Estate Company and Big Boulder Corporation (together , the Registrants) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Patrick M. Flynn, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Registrants, 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Section 78m(a) or Section 78o(d); and



(2)

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







/s/ Patrick M. Flynn

Patrick M. Flynn

Chief Executive Officer and President

February 14, 2006
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  By:
    /S/ Joshua G. JamesDate: August 8, 2008
    
    Name:
    Joshua G. JamesTitle:
    President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  By:
    /S/ Michael S. HerringDate: August 8, 2008
    
    Name:
    Michael S. HerringTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President(Principal Financial and
Accounting Officer) A signed original of each of the written statements above required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Omniture, Inc. and will be retained by Omniture,
Inc. and furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 The forgoing certifications are being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an
exhibit to the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008, and they
shall not be considered filed as part of such report
EXHIBIT 32.2  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 on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2006 of Blue Ridge Real Estate Company and Big Boulder Corporation (together , the Registrants) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Eldon D. Dietterick, Executive Vice President and Treasurer (chief financial officer) of the Registrants, 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Section 78m(a) or Section 78o(d); and  (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrants.    /s/ Eldon D. Dietterick Eldon D. Dietterick Executive Vice President and Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer) January 29, 2007
[985 NE2d 127, 961 NYS2d 363]

#### In the Matter of Commissioner of Social Services, on Behalf of Elizabeth S., Appellant, v Julio J., Respondent.

Decided January 10, 2013

*996APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Michael*A. *Cardozo, Corporation Counsel,*New York City *(Deborah A. Brenner*of counsel), for appellant.

*George E. Reed, Jr.,*White Plains, for respondent.

*Lawyers For Children, Inc.,*New York City *(Brenda S. Soloff*of counsel), for Elizabeth S.

*997OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs, the order of Family Court reinstated, and the certified question answered in the negative.

Before a party can be estopped from denying paternity or from obtaining a DNA test that may establish that he is not the child’s biological parent, the court must be convinced that applying equitable estoppel is in the child’s best interest *(Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D.,*7 NY3d 320 [2006]). The party seeking to prove paternity, whether by estoppel or otherwise, must do so by clear and convincing evidence. Here, although the Appellate Division stated that its reversal was on the law, that Court, considering the same evidence as Family Court, made different factual findings to support its conclusion that the Commissioner of Social Services had not proven by clear and convincing evidence that respondent Julio J. should be estopped from denying paternity. Accordingly, we review the record to determine which set of findings more nearly comports with the weight of the evidence *(see Matter of Jamie M.,*63 NY2d 388, 393 [1984]).

We conclude that the evidence more nearly comports with Family Court’s findings that the child, who was eight years old at the time of the hearing, knows respondent, with his encouragement, as her father; that a relationship existed insofar as the child was concerned; and that the child relied on respondent to be her father sufficiently such that it would be to her detriment for the court to direct DNA testing. Upon those findings, Family Court properly decided that respondent should be equitably estopped from asserting nonpaternity.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read and Pigott concur; Judge Smith dissents and votes to affirm, concluding that the findings of the Appellate Division more nearly comport with the weight of the evidence.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, without costs, order of Family Court, New York County, reinstated, and certified question answered in the negative, in a memorandum.
#### Mershon *v.*The Ramapo.1

*(District Court, E. D. New York.*

May 29, 1888.)

Collision—Between Steam and Sail—Change op Course—Evidence.

Tl>.e schooner M. and a car-float in tow of the tug R. collided near the month of the Kill von Kull. The tug alleged that the schooner did not hoid her course. The schooner's crew, and the master of another schooner in the vicinity at the time, testified that she did. Held, that the account of the collision given by the master of the tug was highly improbable; that the schooner cid not change her course, and was entitled to recover her damages.

In Admiralty. Libel for damages.

*Carpenter &*Mosher, for libelant.

*Wilcox, Adams <Sc Macklin, for*claimant.

1

Reported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.

Benedict, J.

. This is an action to recover for damages to the libel-ant’s schooner, the George B. Maride, caused by a collision between that schooner and a car-float, at the time in tow of the tug Ramapo. The collision occurred near the mouth of the-Kill von Kull, in November, 1886. The wind was from the south-east,—a good sailing breeze,—the tide was ebb, the schooner was beating out close-hauled on the starboard tack, sailing under a jib, foresail, and a reefed mainsail. The weather was clear. The question of the case is whether the schooner held her course. On the part of the schooner, the testimony of the master and the two men composing the crew is positive to the effect that the schooner held her course, and they are' confirmed by the testimony of the captain of the schooner Niantic, which was sailing into the Kills as the Maride was beating out. This witness testifies that the Markle was dose to the wind all the time, and never changed. In opposition to the testimony produced by the libelant, the master of the Ramapo gives upon the stand a remarkable statement. He testifies to five successive luffs of the schooner, and five successive alarms given by him, and that the schooner fell off four times, all after she came in sight upon the starboard tack. This account of the collision differs from the account set forth in the answer, *613and differs from the account given by the other witnesses called on behalf of the claimant to testify to a failure on the part of the schooner to hold her course, and is highly improbable. In view of such an account given by the master of the tug, I have little hesitation in believing the account given by the master of the schooner. According to that account, no fault was committed in the management of the schooner. The decree must be for the libelant, with costs, and a reference to ascertain the amount of damages.
Exhibit 99(a)

                           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 The Black & Decker  Corporation  (the
"Corporation") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Nolan D. Archibald,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the  Corporation,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

           (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
Corporation.


/s/ NOLAN D. ARCHIBALD
------------------------------------
Nolan D. Archibald
Chief Executive Officer
February 14, 2003
Order of May 28, 2015 Withdrawn; Order filed July 14, 2015 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00106-CR

____________

JOE GRACIA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 177th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1434158

ORDER

On May 28, 2015, this court directed the Harris County District Clerk to file 

a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s judgment. The District 

Clerk subsequently informed this court that the trial court’s order was contained in 

the clerk’s record filed May 20, 2015. Therefore, we withdraw the court’s order of 

May 28, 2015. 

PER CURIAM
EX-10.2.(2).(e)



 Exhibit 10.2.(2).(e) 

AMENDMENT TO A. H. BELO CORPORATION 
 1995 EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN 
 (as Restated to Incorporate
Amendments through December 4, 1997) 
 WHEREAS, in connection with the proposed transaction contemplated by the
Agreement and Plan of Merger among Belo Corp. (the “Company”), Gordon Co., Inc. and Delta Acquisition Corp., dated as of June 12, 2013 (the “Merger Agreement”), the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the
Company is hereby amending Section 12 of the A. H. Belo Corporation 1995 Executive Compensation Plan (as Restated to Incorporate Amendments through December 4, 1997) (the “Plan”), as permitted by Section 16 of the Plan, in
order to ensure that the treatment of the stock options to acquire shares of Company common stock as provided under Section 2.3 of the Merger Agreement is consistent with the terms of the Plan. 

NOW THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
 The following is hereby added at the end of Section 12 of the Plan: 

Moreover, in the event of any such transaction or event, the Committee in is discretion may provide in substitution for any or all
outstanding Awards under this Plan such alternative consideration as it, in good faith, may determine to be equitable in the circumstances and may require in connection with such substitution the surrender of all Awards so replaced. 

Except as expressly modified hereby, the terms and provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.