alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Nora Hernandez DE GARCIA, a.k.a. Carla Hernandez Ramos, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

Nos. 07-70589, 07-70945.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 12, 2008.*

Filed May 15, 2008.

Steven P. Brazelton, Law Office of Steven P. Brazelton, Reno, NV, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Director, Office of the District Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, Oil, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, THOMAS and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Nora Hernandez de Garcia petitions for review from an order reinstating under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) an order of deportation entered by an Immigration Judge in 1995. She also seeks review of the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) denials of her application for adjustment of status and application for permission to reapply for admission after deportation.

Hernandez de Garcia does not dispute that she satisfies the statutory requirements for reinstatement. Under the reinstatement statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5), we lack jurisdiction to consider Hernandez de Garcia’s collateral challenge to her 1995 immigration proceedings and deportation order. *See Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales,*486 F.3d 484, 495-496 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc); *Padilla v. Ashcroft,*334 F.3d 921, 924 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, the government’s motion for summary disposition is granted with respect to the challenges to the order reinstating the prior deportation order because the questions raised as to that order are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. *See United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard).

*764Hernandez de Garcia also requests that we hold that she is not barred from applying for adjustment of status and permission to reapply for admission after deportation pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 212.2. We find no error, however, in DHS’s determination that Hernandez de Garcia is ineligible for these forms of relief. *See Gonzales v. Dep’t of Homeland Security,*508 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir.2007).

All pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal shall remain in effect until issuance of the mandate.

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 10.1 - Executive Officer Compensation

                  The Board of Directors of Temecula Valley Bank, upon the
recommendation of the Executive Officer Compensation Committee, approved an
increase of the pay out amount under existing salary continuation plans from
$80,000 to $100,000 per year for the following executive officers:

                  Donald A. Pitcher
                  Martin E. Plourd
                  Thomas M. Shepherd

                  As soon as practical, these changes will be documented in
amendments to existing agreements.
{"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":"Chairman Cordero Addresses Pulse of the Ports Peak Season Forecast Conference","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"sx1TJhgIYl\"><a href=\"\/chairman-cordero-addresses-pulse-of-the-ports-peak-season-forecast-conference\/\">Chairman Cordero Addresses Pulse of the Ports Peak Season Forecast Conference<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/chairman-cordero-addresses-pulse-of-the-ports-peak-season-forecast-conference\/embed\/#?secret=sx1TJhgIYl\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Chairman Cordero Addresses Pulse of the Ports Peak Season Forecast Conference” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"sx1TJhgIYl\" 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"}
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE:

MCDONALD’S RESTAURANTS OF

TEXAS, INC.,

Relator. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 24

- 00140

- CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus against

the Honorable Francisco X. Dominguez

, Judge of the 205th District Court of El Paso, Texas, and

concludes that Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus should be conditionally granted. We

therefore conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus. T he writ will issue only if

Respondent does not do so within ten days of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2024.

LISA J. SOTO

, Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Palafox

, Soto, JJ.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

**OF**

**PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Ballistic RecoverySystems, Inc. does hereby certify that:**

**c.**               the Annual Report on Form10-KSB of Ballistic Recovery Systems, Inc. for the year ended September 30,2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

**d.**               information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of Ballistic Recovery Systems, Inc.

** **
| Date: December 22, 2006 |   | /s/ Don R. Hedquist          |   |
|-------------------------|--------|------------------------------|--------|
|                    |   | By Don R. Hedquist           |   |
|                    |   | Principal Accounting Officer |   |

** **

----
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CALVIN CLAYTON LINCECUM,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 

 State.

 

§

§

§

 

§

§

§ 

 

§

'

'

No. 08-14-00015-CR

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 4

of Collin County, Texas 

(TC# 004-83824-2013)

 O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s third motion for extension of time to file the brief 

until June 6, 2014. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE 

APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Gerald David Knapp, the Appellant’s Attorney, 

prepare the Appellant’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before June 6, 2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 28

th day of May, 2014.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6725

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RAYMOND CHERISSON, a/k/a Haitian James,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,

District Judge. (CR-94-97)

Submitted: January 26, 2007 Decided: May 17, 2007

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond Cherisson, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Blaise Hamilton,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Raymond Cherisson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice

of appeal was not timely filed. 

When the United States or its officer or agency is a

party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days

after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order,

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is

“mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr.,

434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361

U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on

July 8, 2004. The notice of appeal was filed on April 18, 2005.

Because Cherisson failed to file a timely notice of appeal, and

because the district court properly has denied Cherisson’s motion

to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 10.10


 





 


July 18, 2007


 


 


Darrel Posegate


Executive Vice President/Chief Financial Officer


HF Financial Corp.


P.O.Box 5000


Sioux Falls, SD 57117 – 5000


 


Dear Darrel:


 


I am pleased to announce that First Tennessee Bank National Association
has reaffirmed HF Financial Corporation’s existing Revolving Line of Credit
with First Tennessee Bank in the amount of Six Million Dollars ($6,000,000.00).
 HFC may use advances under this line of
credit for: i) capital infusion to its subsidiaries to support growth and/or
bank or branch acquisitions, ii) acquisition of bank holding companies, and
iii) other liquidity needs.  At or near
maturity, FTB will review the line of credit for the possibility of another
one-year extension.


 


The interest on the outstanding balance will be payable quarterly at a
variable rate per annum on the outstanding balance.  The variable rate of interest shall be 1/4%
discount to First Tennessee’s Base Rate, which is currently 8.25%.  Thus, your borrowing rate today would equal
8.00%.  The maturity
date of this commitment is May 29, 2008.


 


The indebtedness shall be governed by the original covenants and
conditions set forth in the commitment letter dated June 3, 2003.


 


Additionally, this letter confirms the renewal of Home Federal Bank’s Fed
Funds accommodation in the amount of Fifteen Million Dollars
($15,000,000.00).  This
accommodation will cover the period from June 30, 2007 to June 30, 2008 and is
subject to the following:


 


•      In
accordance with First Tennessee Policy, this is not a confirmed line and is
subject to cancellation at any time. 
Reasons for cancellation include, but are not limited to changes in the
financial condition, in the senior management or the liquidity position of Home
Federal Bank or the funding mix or First Tennessee Bank.


 


1

















 


•      Requests
for borrowing over the pre-approved limit will be considered on a case-to-case
basis.  Fed Funds purchases need not be
renewed on a daily basis.  Continuous
borrowings in excess of fourteen (14) days must be secured in full by U.S.
Government or Agency Securities.


 


•      Requests
to borrow Fed Funds can be made by calling the Financial Institutions Division
at 1-800-934-8937 Extension 7981.  The
cutoff time for borrowing Fed Funds is 3:00 P.M. (CST).


 


Darrel, it is a pleasure of First Tennessee Bank to provide these
commitments/accommodations to your institution and look forward to servicing
the financial needs of the company in the future.  Please do not hesitate to call if you have
any questions or concerns.


 


 


	
  Sincerely,

  
	
   

  
	
   

  
	
  /s/ David House

  	
   

  
	
  David House

  
	
  Vice President

  
	
  Correspondent Services

  



 


2
#### ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee, v. SEA QUEST INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant, Trident Shipworks, Inc., Defendant.

No. 10-10239.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Nov. 23, 2010.

William Gray Dunlap, Jr., Attorney at Law, Tampa, FL, Steven D. Caley, Weiss-man, Nowack, Curry & Wilco, Atlanta, GA, Plaintiff-Appellee.

Stephen A. Marino, Jr., Randall S. Goldberg, Ver Ploeg & Lumpkin, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

*472Before HULL and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and COOKE,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable Marcia G. Cooke, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

Defendant-Appellant Sea Quest International, Inc. (“Sea Quest”) appeals the district court’s order dated December 17, 2009, 676 F.Supp.2d 1306, granting summary judgment to St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. (“St.Paul”), Plaintiff-Appellee, and denying Sea Quest’s motion for summary judgment. After oral argument and review, this Court affirms the district court’s order concluding St. Paul has no liability to Sea Quest under its marine general liability policy of insurance (No. 368FA0038) and excess insurance policy (No. 368FA0046) issued by St. Paul to Defendant Trident Shipworks, Inc. (“Trident”).

As to any alleged third-party claims Sea Quest argues on appeal that it has brought under either of the builder’s risk insurance policies issued by St. Paul to Trident (Nos. 368FA0280 and 368FA0172), we conclude that Sea Quest failed to raise such claims in its counterclaim or in its motion for summary judgment filed in the district court, and such third-party claims are therefore not properly before us on appeal. In any event, we conclude such third-party claims under either of the builder’s risk policies lack merit for a number of reasons, including but not limited to the doctrine of res judicata, and the claims are foreclosed under Florida law.

AFFIRMED.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-14-00277-CV

Shawna SILVAS,

Appellant

v.

Krystyne F. ALEKSANDER,

Appellee

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CI-11352

Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE MARION, AND JUSTICE BARNARD

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, this appeal is 

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b); see also TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.3(c).

SIGNED June 11, 2014.

_____________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 10, 2009

d0603 

# Order

June 10, 2009

138422

OTTAWA COUNTY, Petitioner-Appellant,

v SC: 138422 COA: 276669 Ottawa CC: 05-053720-CK POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF MICHIGAN, Respondent-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the December 11, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
{"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":"Several FMC Applications are Currently Experiencing Issues","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"B6WWKtTovU\"><a href=\"\/several-fmc-applications-are-currently-experiencing-issues\/\">Several FMC Applications are Currently Experiencing Issues<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/several-fmc-applications-are-currently-experiencing-issues\/embed\/#?secret=B6WWKtTovU\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Several FMC Applications are Currently Experiencing Issues” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"B6WWKtTovU\" 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"}
edsa_ex101.htm

EXHIBIT 10.1
  
  
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
  
 THIS AGREEMENT is made the 12th day of April, 2022.
  
 BETWEEN:
  
 EDESA BIOTECH INC., a company incorporated pursuant to the laws of the Province of British Columbia (the “Employer”)
  
 OF THE FIRST PART
  
 - and -
  
 PARDEEP NIJHAWAN, of the City of Markham, in the Province of Ontario (the “Employee”)
  
 OF THE SECOND PART
  
 WHEREAS:
  
 	 A.
	 The parties hereto have entered into an Employment Agreement dated June 14, 2019 (the “Employment Agreement”);

	  
	  

	 B.
	 The parties hereto have entered into an amendment agreement to the Employment Agreement dated March 19, 2021 (the “First Amending Agreement”); and

	  
	  

	 C.
	 The parties wish to make certain further amendments to the Employment Agreement with respect to the Employee’s compensation.


  NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the covenants and agreements herein, and for other good and valuable consideration given by each party hereto to the other, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged by each of the parties, the parties hereby agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows:
  
 	 1.
	 The first paragraph of Section 3 entitled “Compensation and Benefits” is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following in its place and stead:


  
 	  
	 “In consideration of the services to be provided hereunder, the Employee, during the term of his employment, shall be paid a gross annual base salary of $331,200 USD (“Base Salary”), retroactive to March 24, 2022, payable in equal bi-weekly installments, in arrears, less applicable statutory deductions and withholdings. Salaries are reviewed annually in March on the basis of such factors as, but not limited to, merit, market performance, job grade and potential. However, any increase to the Employee’s Base Salary is in the sole discretion of the Employer.”
	  


  
 	 2.
	 This agreement may be signed and delivered electronically or by facsimile in one or more counterparts, each of which, when taken together, shall be deemed to be one and the same agreement.

	  
	  

	 3.
	 In all other respects, the Employment Agreement remains in full force and effect unamended.


  	 
	 1

	

	 

  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed effective the date first noted above.
  
 	  
	 /s/ Pardeep Nijhawan
	  

	  
	 PARDEEP NIJHAWAN
	  


  
 	  
	 EDESA BIOTECH INC. 
  
	  

	  
	 By:
	 /s/ Michael Brooks
	  

	  
	  
	 Name:  Michael Brooks
	  

	  
	  
	 Title:    President 
	  


  
 	 
	 2
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 18, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 65223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31146]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-38,243]


Color-Tex International, North Carolina Finishing Division, 
Salisbury, North Carolina; Notice of Revised Determination on 
Reconsideration

    On April 16, 2001, the Department issued a notice of affirmative 
determination regarding application for reconsideration of the denial 
of trade adjustment assistance for workers of the subject firm. The 
notice was published in the Federal Register on May 3, 2001 (66 FR 
22263).
    Workers of Color-Tex International, North Carolina Finishing 
Division, Salisbury, North Carolina, engaged in employment related to 
dying and finishing fabric, were initially denied TAA because the 
``contributed importantly'' criterion of the Trade Act of 1974, as 
amended, was not met.
    The petitioner provided a listing of additional customers of the 
subject firm. A survey of the additional customers revealed that they 
had reduced purchases from North Carolina Finishing and increased 
imports of dyed and finished fabric during the time period relevant to 
the investigation.

 Conclusion

    After careful consideration of the new facts obtained on 
reconsideration, it is concluded that increases in imports of articles 
like or directly competitive with dyed and finished fabric produced at 
the subject firm contributed importantly to the decline in sales or 
production and to the total or partial separation of workers of that 
firm. In accordance with the provisions of the Trade Act of 1974, I 
make the following revised determination:

    All workers of Color-Tex International, North Carolina Finishing 
Division, Salibury, North Carolina, who became totally or partially 
separated from employment on or after October 4, 1999, through two 
years from the date of this issuance, are eligible to apply for 
adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.


    Signed at Washington, DC, this 25th day of October 2001.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-31146 Filed 12-17-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M