alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 21

Subsidiaries of Company

                                 Percentage Owned         State of
Subsidiaries                          by Parent         Incorporation

Harland dataPRINT, Inc.                  100               Georgia

Harland Financial Solutions, Inc.        100               Oregon

Ultradata Corporation                    100               Delaware

The Check Store, Inc.                    100               Georgia

Harland International Company            100               Georgia

Scantron Corporation                     100               Delaware

Harland Benefits Management Corporation   90               Delaware

Harland Business Products, Inc.          100               Delaware


This list excludes subsidiaries which, considered in the aggregate as a single
subsidiary, would not constitute a "significant subsidiary".
EXHIBIT 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

|Name of Subsidiary                               |          | Jurisdiction of
Incorporation |      | Percent
Ownership
|------------------------------------------------ | -------- | ----------------------------- | ---- | -----------------
|                                                 |          |                               |     
|Hastings, Inc.                                   | Ontario  |                               | 100%
|                                                 |          |                               |     
|Ertel Manufacturing Corporation of Canada, Ltd.* | Canada   |                               | 100%
|                                                 |          |                               |     
|HMC, Inc. (formerly Douglas Corporation)         | Michigan |                               | 100%

*Wholly owned subsidiary of Hastings, Inc.

In addition, Hastings Manufacturing Company owns a 50% interest in Casite Intraco, L.L.C., a Michigan limited liability company formed pursuant to a Joint Venture Agreement with Intraco Corporation. This entity conducts business under the name "The Casite Company."
### §460mmm. Findings and purpose

#### (a) Findings

Congress finds that certain areas located in the Grand Valley in Mesa County, Colorado, and Grand County, Utah, should be protected and enhanced for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. These areas include the following:

(1) The areas making up the Black Ridge and Ruby Canyons of the Grand Valley and Rabbit Valley, which contain unique and valuable scenic, recreational, multiple use opportunities (including grazing), paleontological, natural, and wildlife components enhanced by the rural western setting of the area, provide extensive opportunities for recreational activities, and are publicly used for hiking, camping, and grazing, and are worthy of additional protection as a national conservation area.

(2) The Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Study Area has wilderness value and offers unique geological, paleontological, scientific, and recreational resources.

#### (b) Purpose

The purpose of this subchapter is to conserve, protect, and enhance for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations the unique and nationally important values of the public lands described in section 460mmm–2(b) of this title, including geological, cultural, paleontological, natural, scientific, recreational, environmental, biological, wilderness, wildlife education, and scenic resources of such public lands, by establishing the McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area and the Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness in the State of Colorado and the State of Utah.

(Pub. L. 106–353, §2, Oct. 24, 2000, 114 Stat. 1374; Pub. L. 108–400, §1(a), Oct. 30, 2004, 118 Stat. 2254.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2004—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 108–400 substituted "McInnis Canyons" for "Colorado Canyons".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Change of Name

Pub. L. 108–400, §1(f), Oct. 30, 2004, 118 Stat. 2254, provided that: "Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 'Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area' shall be deemed to be a reference to the 'McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area'."

#### Effective Date of 2004 Amendment

Pub. L. 108–400, §1(g), Oct. 30, 2004, 118 Stat. 2254, provided that: "This section [amending this section and sections 460mmm–1, 460mmm–2, and 460mmm–6 of this title, enacting provisions set out as a note under this section, and amending provisions set out as a note under this section] and the amendments made by this section take effect on January 1, 2005."

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 106–353, §1, Oct. 24, 2000, 114 Stat. 1374, as amended by Pub. L. 108–400, §1(e), Oct. 30, 2004, 118 Stat. 2254, provided that: "This Act [enacting this subchapter and provisions listed in a table of Wilderness Areas set out under section 1132 of this title] may be cited as the 'McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area and Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Act of 2000'."
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**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 AnnualReport of Hawkins, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended March30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the Report), I, John R. Hawkins, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ John R.  Hawkins     |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
|                     |
|                     |
| John R.  Hawkins         |
| Chief  Executive Officer |
| June 27,  2003           |

 

 

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toHawkins, Inc. and will be retained by Hawkins, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
III 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 346 

Designating October 8, 2019, as ‘‘National Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Day’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 26, 2019 

Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. PORTMAN, Mr. COONS, Mr. 

GARDNER, and Mr. MURPHY) submitted the following resolution; which 

was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating October 8, 2019, as ‘‘National Hydrogen and 

Fuel Cell Day’’. 

Whereas hydrogen, which has an atomic mass of 1.008, is the 

most abundant chemical substance in the universe; 

Whereas the United States is a world leader in the development and deployment of fuel cell and hydrogen technologies; 

Whereas hydrogen fuel cells played an instrumental role in 

the United States space program, helping the United 

States achieve the mission of landing a man on the 

Moon; 

Whereas private industry, Federal and State governments, 

national laboratories, and institutions of higher education 

continue to improve fuel cell and hydrogen technologies 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 346 ATS 

to address the most pressing energy, environmental, and 

economic issues of the United States; 

Whereas fuel cells utilizing hydrogen and hydrogen-rich fuels 

to generate electricity are clean, efficient, and resilient 

technologies being used for— 

(1) stationary and backup power generation; and 

(2) zero-emission transportation for light-duty vehicles, industrial vehicles, delivery vans, buses, trucks, marine applications, and aerial vehicles; 

Whereas stationary fuel cells are being placed in service for 

continuous and backup power to provide business and energy consumers with reliable power in the event of grid 

outages; 

Whereas stationary fuel cells can help reduce water use, as 

compared to traditional power generation technologies; 

Whereas fuel cell electric vehicles that utilize hydrogen can 

completely replicate the experience of internal combustion 

vehicles, including comparable range and refueling times; 

Whereas hydrogen fuel cell industrial vehicles are being deployed at logistical hubs and warehouses across the 

United States and exported to facilities in Europe and 

Asia; 

Whereas hydrogen is a nontoxic gas that can be derived from 

a variety of domestically available traditional and renewable resources, including solar, wind, biogas, and the 

abundant supply of natural gas in the United States; 

Whereas hydrogen and fuel cells can store energy to help enhance the grid and maximize opportunities to deploy renewable energy; 

Whereas the United States produces and uses approximately 

10,000,000 metric tons of hydrogen per year; and 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 346 ATS 

Whereas engineers and safety code and standard professionals have developed consensus-based protocols for safe 

delivery, handling, and use of hydrogen: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate designates October 8, 

2 2019, as ‘‘National Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Day’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

_____________________ Division

In re 

 Case No. 

 Debtor(s) Chapter 13 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

UPON DENIAL OF CONFIRMATION 

On _________________________, the Court entered an Order Denying Confirmation and 

providing that the debtor's case would be dismissed unless, within 21 days, the debtor(s) took action 

under Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-2; 

____ It appears that the debtor(s) has not taken such action within the time given, 

____ The debtor(s) having requested and received an extension of time within which 

 to take action under Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-2. It appears that the debtor(s) has 

 not taken such action within the time given, 

It is, therefore, 

ORDERED, pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 3015-2, that the above case be dismissed; 

and it is further 

[If appropriate] ORDERED that the debtor(s) pay the balance of the filing fee in the 

amount of $ _____________________ to the Clerk of Court within 14 days of the date of this 

order; and it is further 

ORDERED that dismissal of this case revests the property of the estate in the entity in which 

such property was vested immediately before the commencement of the case. The trustee need not 

file a final report in this case unless property or money was administered. 

WILLIAM C. REDDEN 

Clerk of Court 

Date: __________________________ By ___________________________________

 Deputy Clerk 

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER 

 ENTERED ON DOCKET: 

 ________________________________ 

 

 [odisdnco ver. 12/09] 

Alexandria

Farzad Farzayee

Tobah Farzayee 16-12551-RGM

11/09/2016

0.00

Dec 7 2016 /s/ Anthony L. Shepherd

Dec 7 2016

Case 16-12551-RGM Doc 46 Filed 12/07/16 Entered 12/07/16 16:29:27 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 16447]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6801]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-74,880]


Lafarge North America, Inc., a Subsidiary of Lafarge, Including 
On-Site Leased Workers From Industrial Services, Incorporated and 
Summit Building Maintenance, Seattle, WA; Amended Certification 
Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended 
(``Act''), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a 
Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance 
on November 30, 2010, applicable to workers of Lafarge North America, 
Inc., a subsidiary of Lafarge, Seattle, Washington. The workers produce 
cement and cementitious products. The notice was published in the 
Federal Register on December 13, 2010 (75 FR 77668).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The company reports that 
workers leased from Industrial Services, Incorporated and Summit 
Building Maintenance were employed on-site at the Seattle, Washington 
location of Lafarge North America, Inc., a subsidiary of Lafarge. The 
Department has determined that these workers were sufficiently under 
the control of Lafarge North America, Inc., a subsidiary of Lafarge to 
be considered leased workers.
    Based on these findings, the Department is amending this 
certification to include workers leased from Industrial Services, 
Incorporated and Summit Building Maintenance working on-site at the 
Seattle, Washington location of Lafarge North America, Inc., a 
subsidiary of Lafarge.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-74,880 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Lafarge North America, Inc., a subsidiary of 
Lafarge, including on-site leased workers from Industrial Services, 
Incorporated and Summit Building Maintenance, Seattle, Washington, 
who became totally or partially separated from employment on or 
after November 10, 2009, through November 30, 2012, and all workers 
in the group threatened with total or partial separation from 
employment on the date of certification through two years from the 
date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment 
assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as 
amended.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 15th day of March, 2011.
Michael W. Jaffe,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2011-6801 Filed 3-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
EXHIBIT 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

|Name of Subsidiary                       |          | Jurisdiction of
Incorporation |      | Percent
Ownership
|---------------------------------------- | -------- | ----------------------------- | ---- | -----------------
|                                         |          |                               |     
|Hastings, Inc.                           | Ontario  |                               | 100%
|                                         |          |                               |     
|HMC, Inc. (formerly Douglas Corporation) | Michigan |                               | 100%

In addition, Hastings Manufacturing Company owns a 50% interest in Casite Intraco, L.L.C., a Michigan limited liability company formed pursuant to a Joint Venture Agreement with Intraco Corporation.  This entity conducts business under the name "The Casite Company."
#### In the Matter of Louis Strand et al., Doing Business as Commercial Assistance Company, Judgment Creditors, Respondents, v. Harry Piser, Judgment Debtor. F. & M. Schaefer, Brewing Company, Judgment Creditor, Appellant; Capitol Wine *&*Spirit Corporation et al., Judgment Creditors, Respondents.

All concur.
REGION 6 ORDER Return to List ofOrders R6-lll0.ll April 30, 2002 ACTING REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR

- ORDER OF SUCCESSION I. PURPOSE. This Order establishes the line ofsuccession to the position ofRegional Administrator, in Region 6. It is intended to ensure that the Region has an Acting Regional Administrator during those times that the Regional Administratoris absent from the Regional Office. 2. POLICY.

a. ORDER OF SUCCESSION (I) Deputy Regional Administrator (2) Assistant Regional Administratorfor Management (3) Director, Superfund Division (4) Director, Compliance Assurance and EnforcementDivision (5) Director, MultimediaPlanning and Permitting Division (6) Director, Water Quality Protection Division (7) Director, Office ofExternal Affairs b. CORRESPONDENCE. When it is necessary that correspondence or otherdocuments be signed during the absence ofthe Regional Administrator, the acting official is authorized to sign his/her name, thus executing the document. It is the responsibility ofthe acting official to keep the regional Administrator informed ofall documents signed in his/her absence. All documents to be signedby the acting official will be broughtto the Executive Mail Office where they will be logged, reviewed andbroughtto the Regional Administrator's office for a signature. 3. SUPERSESSION. This Order is effective immediately. Regional OrderR6-1110.10 is hereby superseded.

/s/**L~** 

### -;. (for) Gregg A. Cooke Regional Administrator
### §482j. Santa Fe National Forest; mining rights; protection of scenic values

On and after June 10, 1949, mining locations made under mining laws of the United States within the following-described lands within the Santa Fe National Forest, Santa Fe, New Mexico: Sections 1, 2, 3, the northeast quarter of section 11 and the north half of section 12, in surveyed township 17 north, range 10 east; sections 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 36, and that portion of section 25, outside the boundaries of the Gabaldon Grant in surveyed township 18 north, range 10 east; three thousand eight hundred and forty acres, more or less, in unsurveyed township 18 north, range 11 east, expected to be legally described, when surveyed, as sections 7, 8, 18, 19, and 30, the northeast quarter of section 17, the west half of section 17 and the west half of section 20, township 18 north, range 11 east, New Mexico principal meridian, shall confer on the locator the right to occupy and use so much of the surface of the land covered by the location as may be reasonably necessary to carry on prospecting, mining, and beneficiation of ores including the taking of mineral deposits and timber required by or in the mining and ore reducing operations, and no permit shall be required or charge made for such use or occupancy: Provided, however, That the cutting and removal of timber, except where clearing is necessary in connection with mining operations or to provide space for buildings or structures used in connection with mining operations, shall be conducted in accordance with the rules for timber cutting on adjoining national-forest land, and no use of the surface of the claim or the resources therefrom not reasonably required for carrying on mining and prospecting shall be allowed except under the national-forest rules and regulations, nor shall the locator prevent or obstruct other occupancy of the surface or use of surface resources under authority of national-forest regulations, or permits issued thereunder, if such occupancy or use is not in conflict with mineral development.

(June 10, 1949, ch. 190, §1, 63 Stat. 168.)
§ 772.7 Applicability. ( a ) This regulation applies to all Federal or Federal-aid Highway Projects authorized under title 23, United States Code. Therefore, this regulation applies to any highway project or multimodal project that: ( 1 ) Requires FHWA approval regardless of funding sources, or
( 2 ) Is funded with Federal-aid highway funds.
( b ) In order to obtain FHWA approval, the highway agency shall develop noise policies in conformance with this regulation and shall apply these policies uniformly and consistently statewide.
( c ) This regulation applies to all Type I projects unless the regulation specifically indicates that a section only applies to Type II or Type III projects.
( d ) The development and implementation of Type II projects are not mandatory requirements of section 109(i) of title 23, United States Code.
( e ) If a highway agency chooses to participate in a Type II program, the highway agency shall develop a priority system, based on a variety of factors, to rank the projects in the program. This priority system shall be submitted to and approved by FHWA before the highway agency is allowed to use Federal-aid funds for a project in the program. The highway agency shall re-analyze the priority system on a regular interval, not to exceed 5 years.
( f ) For a Type III project, a highway agency is not required to complete a noise analysis or consider abatement measures.
Deny and Opinion Filed May 16, 2014. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 14
- 00576
- CV No. 05
- 14
- 00577
- CV No. 05
- 14
- 00578
- CV IN RE LUIS GARCIA FU ENTES , Relator Original Proceeding from the 195th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F
- 1312634 Trial Court Cause No. F
- 1312633 Trial Court Cause No. F
- 1312632 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Lang

- Miers, and Myers Opini on by Justice Myers Relator files this petition for writ of mandamus alleging that the trial court has failed to follow the proper procedures in determining his pre

- trial writ of habeas corpus. The facts and issues are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them herein. This Court has not been given general supervisory control over district and county courts. Texas Emp. Ins. Ass'n v. Kirby , 150 S.W.2d 123, 126 (Tex. Civ. App.

— Dallas 1941, no writ); see also Guillory v. Davis , 527 S.W.2d 465, 466 (Tex. Civ. App.

— Beaumont 1975, no writ). In a criminal case, an applicant for mandamus relief must establish that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress the harm he has suffered, and he must show that the act he seeks to compel or prohibit does not involve a discretionary or judicial decision. Simon v. Levario , 306 S.W.3d 318, 320 (Tex. Crim.– 2

– App. 2009). The record before the Court shows r elator has not met this standard. See T EX
. R.
A PP
. P . 52.8(a). Accordingly, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus.

140576F.P05 /Lana Myers/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 57422 / March 3, 2008 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING 

File No. 3-11814 

In the Matter of 

ORDER DIRECTING 

COLUMBIA MANAGEMENT DISBURSEMENT OF FAIR FUND 

ADVISORS, INC. and COLUMBIA FUNDS 

DISTRIBUTOR, INC. 

Respondents. 

On July 19, 2006, the Commission published a notice of the Plan of Distribution (“Plan”) 

proposed by the Division of Enforcement in connection with this proceeding (Securities 

Exchange Act Release No. 54175). The Commission received comments and on April 6, 2007 

the Plan was approved. 

The Plan of Distribution provides that a Fair Fund consisting of $140,000,000 in 

disgorgement and civil penalties, plus any accrued interest, be transferred to Deutsche Bank to 

be distributed by the Plan Administrator to injured investors according to the methodology set 

forth in the Plan. The Plan provides that the Commission will arrange for distribution of the Fair 

Fund when a Payment File listing the payees with the identification information required to 

make the distribution has been received and accepted. The Payment File for the fourth 

distribution has been received and accepted.1 

1 By Order Directing Disbursement of Fair Fund dated June 18, 2007, the Commission ordered the first 

disbursement, composed of $37,761,807.19. See Exchange Act Release No. 55922 (June 18, 2007). By Order 

Directing Disbursement of Fair Fund dated August 7, 2007, the Commission ordered the second disbursement, 

composed of $19,148,806.83. See Exchange Act Release No. 56216 (August 7, 2007). By Order Directing 
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Commission staff shall transfer $13,966,412.10 of 

the Fair Fund to Deutsche Bank and the Plan Administrator shall distribute such monies to 

investors, as provided for in the Plan of Distribution. 

For the Commission, by its Secretary, pursuant to delegated authority. 

 Nancy M. Morris 

Secretary 

Disbursement of Fair Fund dated November 28, 2007, the Commission ordered the third disbursement, 

composed of $35,649,884.11. See Exchange Act Release No. 56857 (November 18, 2007). 

2
Order entered March 8, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01040-CV

MICHAEL CARY SNOWDEN AND BRENDA ASCENCIO, Appellants

V.

BRANDON QUACH, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-00955-D

ORDER

Before the Court is appellee’s March 7, 2019 unopposed second motion for an extension 

of time to file a brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to March 14, 2019. 

/s/ KEN MOLBERG 

JUSTICE