alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. VINH HOANG TRAN, aka Junior, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-50668.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 7, 2010.*

Filed Dec. 10, 2010.

Mieke Biesheuvel, Assistant U.S., Hemant Hari Kewalramani, Assistant U.S., United States Attorney’s Office, Santa Ana, CA, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Michael John Khouri, Esquire, Law Offices of Michael J. Khouri, Irvine, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: TROTT, WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and BREWSTER, District Judge.**

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Rudi M. Brewster, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Because the parties are familiar with the facts and circumstances underlying this case, we array them only insofar as necessary to illuminate our decision.

Tran’s first issue is that he was denied the identity of the informant in Minnesota who tipped off the police to Tran’s controlled substances business in California. The district court held a full hearing on this issue and determined that the informant had no information that could help Tran in his defense. Upon review, we conclude that this decision was an appropriate exercise of the court’s discretion. The informant in Minnesota did no more than introduce an undercover officer to the seller of pills in Minnesota and had nothing to do with Tran and his confederates in California.

Tran’s assertion that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction is without merit. The inculpatory testimony *225of accomplices and co-conspirators plus the contents of the wiretaps was more than sufficient to establish his guilt of the charge.

Last, the district court’s adherence to the Sentencing Guidelines was without error. Tran’s argument against the use of an entire pill instead of the weight of the active ingredient in the pill to determine quantity is foreclosed by the Guidelines themselves, *see*USSG § 2D1.1, comment. (n.10(E) and 11), and *United States v. Crowell,*9 F.3d 1452, 1454-55 (9th Cir.1993). *See also United States v. Tushnet,*526 F.3d 823, 824 (5th Cir.2008); *United States v. Krasinski,*545 F.3d 546, 553 (7th Cir.2008).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
f 

. . . . . 

..&.... 

I’ 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 
&&rable ij. U. Snith, page 2 

uDuring this lltigction there acoumultiteb ap 

proxlmtely $1400.00 in tnxea collected. Tba money 

use depo8ltad in jecurlty state Br:nk, Parwell, Texas, 

in the name of TEXAS-NlW UiXICO XHGOL DIdTRTCT #l, 

and Borlna Independent Sohool Dlstriot want.6 tJm aoney. 

I oan me no reaaon why thl8 .mney 00~14 not be paid 

to Bovina Indeoendent School Dletriot beaauee it ia all 

tax money from-what 18 now~part of B:;VI’th IX'CEPiG~31UJT 

SCHG C’lL DUTiilCT. 

Will you please a&vim me whether or not there 

14 any remson why thle money should not be traneferred 

to Bovlna Independent ~obool Diatrlot?" 

/----- 

CFQ:LP
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Statement of FMC Commissioner Dye on Study of U.S. Inland Containerized Cargo Moving Through Canadian and Mexican Seaports","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"qdcJUlzpJ9\"><a href=\"\/statement-of-fmc-commissioner-dye-on-study-of-u-s-inland-containerized-cargo-moving-through-canadian-and-mexican-seaports\/\">Statement of FMC Commissioner Dye on Study of U.S. Inland Containerized Cargo Moving Through Canadian and Mexican Seaports<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/statement-of-fmc-commissioner-dye-on-study-of-u-s-inland-containerized-cargo-moving-through-canadian-and-mexican-seaports\/embed\/#?secret=qdcJUlzpJ9\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Statement of FMC Commissioner Dye on Study of U.S. Inland Containerized Cargo Moving Through Canadian and Mexican Seaports” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"qdcJUlzpJ9\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
Exhibit 11
Computation of Earning Per Share

                             MAGNAVISION CORPORATION
                        Computation of Earnings Per Share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                                       Years Ended
                                            December 31, 1996          December 31, 1995       February 28, 1995
                                            -----------------          -----------------       -----------------

<S>                                             <C>                       <C>                     <C>       
Loss per share - primary

Net loss available for Common Stock and
         Common Stock equivalents               $(1,411,509)              $(844,493)                $(531,863)

Weighted average common shares
         outstanding during the period           22,940,609              25,530,775                26,274,851

Net loss per share                                   $(0.06)                 $(0.03)                   $(0.02)

Loss per share - assuming full dilation             $(n/a(B)                $(n/a(B)                  $(n/a(B)
                                                    ========               =========                  ========
</TABLE>
----------
A)   Common stock equivalents are not included in primary loss per share in
     1996, 1995 and 1994 because they would be anti-dilutive.

B)   Fully diluted loss per share is not used in 1996, 1995 and 1994 because it
     is less than primary loss per share.
No. 950. No. 951.

#### The Western Assurance Company of Toronto, Petitioner, *v.*The Tweedie Trading Company; and A. Foster Higgins et al., Petitioners, *v.*The Tweedie Trading Company.

May 31, ' 1910.

*Mr. Charles C. Burlingham*and *Mr. A. Leo Everett*for the petitioners.

*Mr. Frederick M. Brown*for the respondent.

.Petition for writs of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3281 

To amend the Clean Air Act to provide an exemption from certain 

antitampering provisions for certain actions for modifying a motor vehicle 

that is not legal for operation on a street or highway and is to be 

used solely for competition, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 17, 2021 

Mr. MCHENRY (for himself, Mr. RUIZ, Mr. HUDSON, Mr. PENCE, Mr. WEBSTER of Florida, Mr. BUDD, Mr. JORDAN, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. LAHOOD, Mr. MOORE of Utah, Mr. PERRY, Mr. ROUZER, Mr. 

ROGERS of Alabama, Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania, Mr. PALMER, Mrs. 

TORRES of California, Mr. MASSIE, Mr. VALADAO, Mr. POSEY, Mr. 

MULLIN, Mr. BURGESS, Ms. STEVENS, Mr. CARBAJAL, Mr. LAMALFA, 

Mr. YOUNG, Mr. COOPER, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Mr. 

CAWTHORN, Ms. BOURDEAUX, Mr. SCHRADER, Ms. BROWNLEY, Mrs. 

LESKO, Mrs. GREENE of Georgia, Mr. O’HALLERAN, Mr. GROTHMAN, 

Mr. PETERS, Mrs. WALORSKI, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. PANETTA, Mrs. 

BOEBERT, Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. THOMPSON of California, 

Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania, Mr. KELLER, Mr. STAUBER, 

and Mr. CUELLAR) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Clean Air Act to provide an exemption from 

certain antitampering provisions for certain actions for 

modifying a motor vehicle that is not legal for operation 

on a street or highway and is to be used solely for 

competition, and for other purposes. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3281 IH

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Recognizing the Pro5 tection of Motorsports Act of 2019’’ or the ‘‘RPM Act of 

6 2019’’. 

7 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FROM ANTITAMPERING PROVISIONS. 

8 Section 203(a) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 

9 7522(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘No action with respect to any device or element of design 

11 referred to in paragraph (3) shall be treated as a prohib12 ited act under that paragraph if the action is for the pur13 pose of modifying a motor vehicle into a vehicle that is 

14 not legal for operation on a street or highway and is to 

15 be used solely for competition.’’. 

16 SEC. 3. REGULATION. 

17 Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 

18 of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Pro19 tection Agency shall finalize a regulation to implement the 

20 amendment made by this Act. 

21 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

22 Section 2 shall take effect not later than one year 

23 after the date of enactment of this Act without regard to 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3281 IH

1 whether a final regulation has been promulgated as re2 quired by section 3. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

March 27, 2013

t0320

Order 

March 27, 2013

145612-3 & (147)

145622-3

MEGAN SMITH, NICOLE KELLY, 

ROSHAWNDA WILLIAMS, and NICOLE

JOHNSON,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v SC: 145612-3

COA: 309447, 309894

Genesee CC: 11-097052-CZ

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

DIRECTOR,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

MEGAN SMITH, NICOLE KELLY, 

ROSHAWNDA WILLIAMS, and NICOLE

JOHNSON,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 145622-3

COA: 309447, 309894

Genesee CC: 11-097052-CZ

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

DIRECTOR,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

By order of January 25, 2013, the parties were directed to file supplemental briefs. 

In lieu of supplemental briefs, the parties have filed a joint motion to vacate the Court of 

Appeals decision and dismiss the applications for leave to appeal. On order of the Court, 

the motion is GRANTED in part, and the applications for leave to appeal are 

DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs, and the Court of Appeals opinion at 296 

Mich App 148 (2012) is VACATED as moot. 

MCCORMACK, J., not participating.

VIVIANO, J., not participating.
{"id":266,"date":"2018-03-30T16:27:42","date_gmt":"2018-03-30T20:27:42","guid":{"rendered":"\/?p=266"},"modified":"2018-08-07T09:16:51","modified_gmt":"2018-08-07T13:16:51","slug":"commission-votes-on-agreements-filed-by-mtos-at-port-of-tacoma","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"\/commission-votes-on-agreements-filed-by-mtos-at-port-of-tacoma\/","title":{"rendered":"Commission Votes on Agreements Filed by MTOs at Port of Tacoma"},"content":{"rendered":"<div>March 30, 2018<\/div>\n<p>The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) today voted to allow the Husky-Ports America Washington Marine Terminal Cooperative Working Agreement (FMC Agreement #201240), to go into effect on March 31, 2018. A Request for Additional Information was issued for the Tacoma Marine Terminal Operator Conference Agreement (FMC Agreement #201241) and the Tacoma Marine Terminal Cooperative Working Agreement (FMC Agreement #201242).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>March 30, 2018 The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) today voted to allow the Husky-Ports America Washington Marine Terminal Cooperative Working Agreement (FMC Agreement #201240), to go into effect on March 31, 2018. A Request for Additional Information was issued for the Tacoma Marine Terminal Operator Conference Agreement (FMC Agreement #201241)... <a class=\"read-more\" href=\"\/commission-votes-on-agreements-filed-by-mtos-at-port-of-tacoma\/\">Read More »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[22,4],"tags":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/266"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=266"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/266\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":267,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/266\/revisions\/267"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=266"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=266"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=266"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
Unassociated Document


    


    
      

    

    


    
      

    

    


    
      

    

    


    
      

    

    


    
      

    

    


    
      

    

    


    
      

    

    


    
      

    

    


    
      

    

    


    
      

    

    


    
      

    

    


    
      

    

    


    
      

    

    


    
      

    

    


    
      

    

    


    
      

    

    


    
      

    

    


    
      

    

    


    
      

    

    


    
      

    

     

    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, Sublandlord and Subtenant have hereunto executed this
      Sublease as of the day and year first above written.

    
      	 	 	 
	 	
              SUBLANDLORD:

               

              INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
                MACHINES
CORPORATION

            
	 
 	 
 	 
 
	
            	By:  	/s/ Charles
              P. Assenza
	 	
              
Name:
              Charles P. Assenza
	 	Title:
              Senior Program Manager


    

     

    
      
        	 	 	 
	 	
                SUBTENANT:

                 

                MRU HOLDINGS, INC.

              
	 
 	 
 	 
 
	
              	By:  	/s/ Vishal
                Garg
	 	
                
Name:
                Vishal Garg
	 	Title:
                CFO


      

       

    

     

    19
IB 

Union Calendar No. 195 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3197 

[Report No. 117–266] 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the City of Eunice, 

Louisiana, certain Federal land in Louisiana, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 13, 2021 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Natural Resources 

MARCH 9, 2022 

Reported from the Committee on Natural Resources; committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be 

printed 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3197 RH

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the 

City of Eunice, Louisiana, certain Federal land in Louisiana, and for other purposes. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3197 RH

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Save the Liberty The5 atre Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act: 

8 (1) CITY.—The term ‘‘City’’ means the City of 

9 Eunice, Louisiana. 

10 (2) MAP.—The term ‘‘map’’ means the map en11 titled ‘‘Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and 

12 Preserve, Proposed Boundary Revision and Dis13 posal’’, numbered 467/168813, and dated December 

14 2020. 

15 (3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

16 the Secretary of the Interior. 

17 SEC. 3. LAND CONVEYANCE. 

18 (a) CONVEYANCE AUTHORITY.—The Secretary shall 

19 convey to the City, by quitclaim deed and without consid20 eration, all right, title, and interest of the United States 

21 in and to the parcels of land described in subsection (b). 

22 (b) DESCRIPTION OF LAND.—The parcels of land re23 ferred to in subsection (a) are Lots 5 and 6, less the North 

24 27 feet of Lot 5, Block 22, of the Original Townsite of 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 3197 RH

1 Eunice, generally depicted as ‘‘Proposed Disposal Area’’ 

2 on the map. 

3 (c) AVAILABILITY OF MAP.—The map shall be on file 

4 and available for public inspection in the appropriate of5 fices of the National Park Service. 

6 SEC. 4. BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS. 

7 Upon the conveyance to the City of the land described 

8 in section 3(b), the boundary of the Jean Lafitte National 

9 Historical Park and Preserve shall be adjusted to ex10 clude— 

11 (1) the conveyed land; and 

12 (2) Lots 7 and 8 of the Original Townsite of 

13 Eunice generally depicted as ‘‘Non-NPS in Current 

14 Boundary’’ on the map. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 195 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3197 

[Report No. 117–266] 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey to 

land in Louisiana, and for other purposes. the City of Eunice, Louisiana, certain Federal 

MARCH 9, 2022 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### Patricia Lazano DE PADILLA, Oscar Jaime Padilla Moreno, Petitioners, v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

No. 10-11398

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Nov. 23, 2010.

*473Vincent James Benincasa, Benincasa & Kennedy, P.A., Vero Beach, FL, for Petitioners.

Bernard Joseph, Office of Immigration Litigation, David Bernal, Krystal Samuels, U.S. DOJ OIL, Washington, DC, Michelle Ressler, District Counsel’s Office USICE, Miami, FL, for Respondent.

Before WILSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Oscar Jaime Padilla and his wife, Patricia Lazano de Padilla, natives and citizens of Colombia, petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals that denied Padilla’s application for withholding of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). The Board found that Padilla was not a member of a “particular social group.” We deny the petition.

The Padillas challenge the findings that the social group fashioned by Padilla was not “defined ... with sufficient particularity” and was “insufficiently socially visible.” The Padillas do not challenge the finding that their application for asylum was untimely, which we lack jurisdiction to review. *Mendoza v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,*327 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir.2003). With respect to the petition to review the denial of withholding of removal, we deny the petition for Padilla’s wife because the regulation for this form of relief does not provide for derivative benefits. *See*8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c); *Delgado v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,*487 F.3d 855, 862 (11th Cir.2007).

Substantial evidence supports the decision to deny Padilla’s application for withholding of removal based on membership in a protected social group. A group qualifies as a “particular social group” if its members share an immutable characteristic and are visible socially. *Castillo-Arias v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,*446 F.3d 1190, 1196 (11th Cir.2006). Padilla included as members of his social group those professionals who were unwilling to collaborate and share their knowledge and skills with revolutionaries against the Colombian government. Although members of Padilla’s proposed group might have undergone similar education and training, their defining attribute is “[t]he risk of persecution” they face, which “alone does not create a particular social group.” *Id.*at 1198. In addition, the group described by Padilla lacks social visibility because countless persons could declare membership based on any occupational skill they possess that is desired by the revolutionaries.

PETITION DENIED.
<PAGE>



                                                                 EXHIBIT 24.1(c)
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statement
(Form  S-8 No. 33-58148) pertaining to the 1991 Stock Option Plan of The Warnaco
Group, Inc.  of  our  report  dated  February 23,  1995,  with  respect  to  the
consolidated  financial  statements  and  schedule of  The  Warnaco  Group, Inc.
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended January 6, 1996.
 
                                          ERNST & YOUNG LLP
 
New York, New York
March 18, 1996





<PAGE>