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



Exhibit 21


Subsidiaries of the Company


|                                                                             |  |                 |  |  |                                |  |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------- |  |  | ------------------------------ |  |  | 
|                                                                             |  | Organized under |  |  | Percentage Owned by Registrant | 
|Name                                                                         |  | the Laws of     |  |  | as of December 31, 2004        | 
|                                                                             |  |                 |  |  |                                | 
|National Dentex Corporation had no subsidiaries as of
    December 31, 2004. |  |                 |  |  |                                |  |  |
### §2315. Inclusion of certain conditions in enlistment contract

The enlistment contract shall contain the substance of sections 2312 to 2314,1 inclusive, of this title.

(Aug. 4, 1949, ch. 393, 63 Stat. 524, §369; renumbered §2315 and amended Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §§113(b), 123(b)(2), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4221, 4240.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

It is believed desirable to have the provisions specified included in the enlistment contract, as they include certain privileges and obligations that any man should clearly understand before enlisting. 81st Congress, House Report No. 557.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–282, §123(b)(2), which directed amendment of this title by striking each reference to a section redesignated by title I of Pub. L. 115–282 and inserting a reference to the redesignated section, was executed by substituting "sections 2312 to 2314" for "sections 365 to 368" to reflect the probable intent of Congress. Sections 365 to 367 of this title were redesignated as sections 2312 to 2314 of this title by title I of Pub. L. 115–282, whereas section 368 of this title had previously been repealed by Pub. L. 97–322, title I, §115(b)(1), Oct. 15, 1982, 96 Stat. 1585.

Pub. L. 115–282, §113(b), renumbered section 369 of this title as this section.

1 See 2018 Amendment note below.
N O T F O RP U B L IC A T IO NIN W E S T ' S H AWA I # I RE P O R T S A N D P A C IF IC RE P O R T E R



### NO. CAAP-20-0000541

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
O F THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF8 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARSHALL CHINEN, ESQ., S PECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF PEARL K. KAHOOKAULANA;

STATE OF HAWAI # I – DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Defendants-Appellees, and DEANNA KAHOOKAULANA, Real Party In Interest-Appellant, and JOHN and MARY DOES 1-20; DOE PARTNERSHIPS, CORPORATIONS OR OTHER ENTITIES 1-20, Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT

(CIVIL NO. 3CC161000180)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Leonard and Hiraoka, JJ.) Upon consideration of self-represented Real Party In Interest-Appellant Deanna Kahookaulana's ( Kahookaulana ) March 12, 2021 Motion, which the court construes as a motion to reconsider the court's November 20, 2020 Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Appeal ( Motion to Reconsider ), the papers in support, 1 

### and the record, it appears that (1) the Motion to Reconsider is untimely, see HRAP Rule 40(a); (2) due to confusion over Kahookaulana's mailing address in the record on appeal, the appellate clerk mailed the Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Appeal to Kahookaulana at an incorrect Keaau address and, as a consequence, Kahookaulana did not receive timely notice of the order; (3) the Certificate of Service attached to the Motion to Dismiss

1 On March 19, 2021, Plaintiff-Appellee U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. ( U.S. Bank ) filed an opposition to the Motion to Reconsider, which the court disregarded as unauthorized. See Hawai # i Rules of Appellate Procedure ( HRAP ) Rule 40(c). 

### Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-20-0000541 24-MAR-2021 09:51 AM Dkt. 29 ODMRN O T F O RP U B L IC A T IO NIN W E S T ' S H AWA I # I RE P O R T S A N D P A C IF IC RE P O R T E R



### [Kahookaulana's] Notice of Appeal Filed September 1, 2020 indicates U.S. Bank mailed the motion to Kahookaulana at her correct Pahoa address; and (4) Kahookaulana did not respond to the Motion to Dismiss and has not presented any point of law or fact that the court overlooked or misapprehended when it issued the November 20, 2020 Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Appeal.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the court exercises its authority under HRAP Rule 2 to extend the deadline to file the Motion to Reconsider, and accepts the motion as filed on March 12, 2021.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Reconsider is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appellate clerk shall note that P.O. Box 736, Pahoa, HI 96778 is Kahookaulana's mailing address. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, March 24, 2021. /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza Chief Judge /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Associate Judge /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Associate Judge

2
# C_2011238EN.01001702.xml

| 13.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 238/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/17

---

Order of the General Court of 27 June 2011 — Amecke Fruchtsaft v OHIM — Uhse (69 Sex up)

(Case T-125/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

2011/C 238/29

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Amecke Fruchtsaft GmbH & Co. KG (Menden, Germany) (represented by: R. Kaase and J.-C. Plate, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner and subsequently S. Schäffner and B. Schmidt, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Beate Uhse Einzelhandels GmbH (Flensburg, Germany) (represented by: W. Berlit, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2010 (Case R 612/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Beate Uhse Einzelhandels GmbH and Amecke Fruchtsaft GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate.

| 2. | The applicant shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6393

ROBERT ALLEN BLACK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus EARL BESHEARS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA98-1571-DKC) Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 27, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Robert Allen Black, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Robert Allen Black seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Black v. Beshears , No. CA-98- 1571-DKC (D. Md. Feb. 18, 1999). 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
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                         Independent Auditors' Consent


The Board of Directors and Stockholders
CellStar Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form
S-8 (Nos. 33-87754, 333-23381 and 333-77415) and Form S-3 (No. 333-41753) of
CellStar Corporation of our report dated January 12, 2001, except as to note 6,
which is as of February 27, 2001, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
CellStar Corporation and subsidiaries as of November 30, 2000 and 1999, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and
comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended November 30, 2000, and the related schedule, which
report appears in the November 30, 2000 annual report on Form 10-K of CellStar
Corporation.


                                         /S/ KPMG LLP

                                         KPMG LLP


Dallas, Texas
February 27, 2001
### §4605. Export of semiconductor manufacturing

Any export of materials, equipment, and technology developed by Sematech in whole or in part with financial assistance provided under section 4602(a) of this title shall be subject to the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2401 et seq.) 1 and shall not be subject to the Arms Export Control Act [22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.].

(Pub. L. 100–180, div. A, title II, §275, Dec. 4, 1987, 101 Stat. 1071.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Export Administration Act of 1979, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 96–72, Sept. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 503, which was classified principally to section 2401 et seq. of the former Appendix to Title 50, War and National Defense, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as chapter 56 (§4601 et seq.) of Title 50, and was repealed by Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title XVII, §1766(a), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 2232, except for sections 11A, 11B, and 11C thereof (50 U.S.C. 4611, 4612, 4613).

The Arms Export Control Act, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 90–629, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1320, which is classified principally to chapter 39 (§2751 et seq.) of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2751 of Title 22 and Tables.

1 See References in Text note below.
#### § 318.20 Use of animal drugs.

Animal drug residues are permitted in meat and meat food products if such residues are from drugs which have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration and any such drug residues are within tolerance levels approved by the Food and Drug Administration, unless otherwise determined by the Administrator and listed herein.

[50 FR 32165, Aug. 9, 1985]
SANITIZED
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





CERTIFICATION OF CUSTODIAN





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Family Healthcare Solutions, Inc. , a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Teodoro F. Franco L. , certify, pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that to my knowledge:





(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 Company.





Dated: May 17, 2004





|/s/Teodoro F. Franco L.                   
|------------------------------------------
|Teodoro F. Franco L.
Sole Officer/Director
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 4264** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. DANIEL DEJESUS URIOSTEGUI , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the M iddle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. ( 1:08

- cr - 00175

- JAB

- 2 )

Submitted : July 19 , 2010 Decided: July 29, 2010

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curia m opinion
. Christopher A. Beechler, Winston

- Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Daniel DeJesus Uriostegui timely appeals the 180

- month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006), and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (2006). Uriostegui’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal
. Urioste gui has not filed a pro se brief, though he was informed of his right to do so
. In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment
. This court requires that counsel inform Uriostegui, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Uriostegui requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolo us, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Uriostegui. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conclusions are adequately3 presented in th e materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Exhibit 13.2  CERTIFICATION  Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code)  Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Millicom International Cellular, S.A. a company incorporated under the laws of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:  The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2011 (the Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Dated: March 1, 2012By:
/s/ FRANÇOIS-XAVIER ROGERName: François-Xavier RogerTitle: Chief   Financial Officer  1
Exhibit 32.1




Certification of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of NutraCea (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:




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 Company.





Dated:  February 24, 2011/s/ W. John ShortW. John ShortChief Executive Officer




/s/ Dale BeltJerry Dale BeltChief Financial Officer




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




The foregoing certification is being furnished in accordance with Securities and Exchange Commission Release No. 34-47551 and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-Q.
(66 South. 760)

No. 20132.

#### JONES v. MONROE.

(Nov. 30, 1914.)

*(Syllabus by the Court.)*

Sequestration @=>17 — Dissolution — Damages.

Whore writs of sequestration are dissolved as a result of a trial of a cause on its merits, attorney fees will • not be allowed as damages where it is impossible to determine what portion of the services of counsel related to the release of the property.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Sequestration, Cent. Dig. §§ 35-37; Dec. Dig. @=^17.]

Appeal from Seventh Judicial District Court, Parish of Richland; John R. McIntosh, Judge.

Action by J. W. Jones against W. E. Monroe. Judgment for intervener and plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Smith & McGregor, of Rayville, for appellant. Medlenka & Bruner, of Crowley, for appellee.

LAND, J.

This suit raises the same issue of title to the same traction engine con*149sidered and decided by us in the ease of W. E. Monroe v. J. W. Jones et al. (No. 20131) 66 South. 759,1 and for the reasons assigned in our opinion in that case, the judgment below in favor of the defendant must be affirmed on the question of title.

Plaintiff caused said engine to be seized under writs of sequestration, which were dissolved as a result of trial on the merits.

Defendant in answer to the appeal has prayed that the judgment below be amended by awarding him $150 damages for attorney fees.

The motion to dissolve having been referred to and tried with the merits, it is impossible to determine what portion of the .services of counsel related to the release of the property.

There was judgment below in favor of the intervener recognizing and enforcing its alleged vendor’s privilege on the traction engine.

Plaintiff is the only appellant, and no longer has any interest in contesting the claim of intervener.

Judgment affirmed.

1

Ante, p. 143.
### §57b–5. Agricultural cooperatives

(a) The Commission shall not have any authority to conduct any study, investigation, or prosecution of any agricultural cooperative for any conduct which, because of the provisions of sections 291 and 292 of title 7, is not a violation of any of the antitrust Acts or this subchapter.

(b) The Commission shall not have any authority to conduct any study or investigation of any agricultural marketing orders.

(Sept. 26, 1914, ch. 311, §24, as added Pub. L. 103–312, §2, Aug. 26, 1994, 108 Stat. 1691.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 24 of act Sept. 26, 1914, was renumbered section 25 and is classified to section 57c of this title.
Supporting Materials #1 

Air Quality Data Summaries 

See Attachment: 

+ GRIC Air Quality Monitoring Data 

Summaries
#### § 281.215 Additional relief.

If an interstate pipeline rejects (under § 281.210 or otherwise) a request for reclassification under § 281.206 or classification under § 281.207 or if a local distribution company does not request (for any reason including the provisions of § 281.210) classification under § 281.206 on behalf of its high priority uses or reclassification on behalf of its essential agricultural users, the person aggrieved by such action may file a request for relief from curtailment under § 385.206 of this chapter. The request shall contain the information required in § 2.78(b) of the Commission Regulations.

[44 FR 26862, May 8, 1979, as amended by Order 225, 47 FR 19058, May 3, 1982]
April 27, 2016

James E. O’Connor, EsquireU.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission100 F Street, NEWashington, D.C. 20549

Re:  T. Rowe Price Small-Cap Value Fund, Inc.

 File Nos.: 002-43237/811-2215

 Post-Effective Amendment No. 59

Dear Mr.O’Connor:

I am counsel to T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc., which serves asthe sponsor and investment adviser to all outstanding series of the above-referenced registrant. Theregistrant proposes to file the above-referenced Post-Effective Amendment to its registration statementpursuant to Rule 485(b) under the Securities Act of 1933.

I have reviewed the amendmentto the registration statement and represent that it does not contain disclosures that, in my opinion,would render the amendment ineligible to become effective pursuant to Rule 485(b).

Sincerely,

/s/Brian R. PooleBrian R. PooleVice President and Senior Legal Counsel, T. RowePrice Associates, Inc.
§ 1b.14 Subpoenas. ( a ) Service of a subpoena upon a person named therein shall be made by the investigating officer ( 1 ) by personal delivery,
( 2 ) by certified mail,
( 3 ) by leaving a copy thereof at the principle office or place of business of the person to be served,
( 4 ) or by delivery to any person designated as agent for service or the person's attorney.
( b ) At the time for producing documents subpoenaed in an investigation, the subpoenaed party shall submit a statement stating that, if true, such person has made a diligent search for the subpoenaed documents and is producing all the documents called for by the subpoena. If any subpoenaed document(s) are not produced for any reason, the subpoenaed party shall state the reason therefor.
( c ) If any subpoenaed documents in an investigation are withheld because of a claim of the attorney-client privilege, the subpoenaed party shall submit a list of such documents which shall, for each document, identify the attorney involved, the client involved, the date of the document, the person(s) shown on the document to have prepared and/or sent the document, and the person(s) shown on the document to have received copies of the document.
[43 FR 27174, June 23, 1978, as amended by Order 756, 77 FR 4893, Feb. 1, 2012]
Danish Committee for Aid to Afghan Refugees (DACAAR), 2011, Update on “National groundwater monitoring wells

network activities in Afghanistan” from July 2007 to December 2010: DACAAR, Kabul, Afghanistan, p. 23.

GWM_ID 53

District Chaghcharan

Place Ahangaran

Well type

Method manual (with modified well)

Latitude 34.4712

Longitude 65.0678

Organisation in charge of the measurement

DACAAR

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

26 '0533 '0537 '0541 '0530 '0639 '0646 '0625 '0734 '0743 '07

21 '0830 '0839 '0848 '08

0

5

10

15

20

25

Appendix 3. Hydrograph for groundwater monitoring well GWM 53 modied 

from Danish Committee for Aid to Afghan Refugees (2011).

EXPLANATION 

+++++++++ depth to water (m) below ground surface – right vertical axis

___________ groundwater specic conductance (μS/cm) – left vertical axis

The horizontal axis on the hydrograph is the date given as week number and 

year (for example, 26 ’05 is week number 26 in 2005). The left vertical axis is 

the groundwater specic conductance in microsiemens per centimeter 

(μS/cm) and the right vertical is the depth to water in meters (m) below 

ground surface (bgs).