alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 21.1



Subsidiaries of Paperweight Development Corp.



|                                                |  |                              
|----------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Entity                                          |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|Appleton Papers Inc.                            |  | Delaware                     
|Appleton Papers Canada Ltd.                     |  | Canada                       
|WTA, Inc.                                       |  | Delaware                     
|Appleton Papers de Mexico SA de CV              |  | Mexico                       
|Appleton Steam Inc.                             |  | Wisconsin                    
|C&H Packaging Company, Inc.                     |  | Wisconsin                    
|American Plastics Company, Inc.                 |  | Wisconsin                    
|American Real Estate Corporation                |  | Wisconsin                    
|Rose Holdings Limited                           |  | United Kingdom               
|Bemrose Group Limited                           |  | United Kingdom               
|The Henry Booth Group Limited                   |  | United Kingdom               
|BemroseBooth Limited                            |  | United Kingdom               
|Bemrose Security & Promotional Printing Limited |  | United Kingdom               
|HBGI Holdings Limited                           |  | United Kingdom               
|BemroseBooth USA Inc.                           |  | Georgia                      
|Arjo Wiggins Appleton (Bermuda) Limited         |  | Bermuda
Editorial Note on Part 120
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 120 appear at 72 FR 50039, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 120.350 Policy. Section 7(a)(15) of the Act authorizes SBA to guarantee a loan to a: ( a ) Qualified employee trust (“ESOP”) to: ( 1 ) Help finance the growth of its employer's small business; or
( 2 ) Purchase ownership or voting control of the employer; and a
( b ) Small business concern, if the proceeds from the loan are only used to make a loan to a qualified employee trust that results in the qualified employee trust owning at least 51 percent of the small business concern.
[87 FR 38908, June 30, 2022]
#### Katherine D. Carter v. James E. Carter.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with ten dollars costs. Present—Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 124
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 124 appear at 72 FR 50040, Aug. 30, 2007, and 76 FR 8253, Feb. 11, 2011.

§ 124.510 What limitations on subcontracting apply to an 8(a) contract? ( a ) To assist the business development of Participants in the 8(a) BD program, there are limitations on the percentage of an 8(a) contract award amount that may be spent on subcontractors. The prime contractor recipient of an 8(a) contract must comply with the limitations on subcontracting at § 125.6 of this chapter.
( b ) Indefinite delivery and indefinite quantity contracts. In order to ensure that the required limitations on subcontracting requirements on an indefinite delivery or indefinite quantity 8(a) award are met by the Participant, the Participant cannot subcontract more than the required percentage to subcontractors that are not similarly situated entities for each performance period of the contract (*i.e.,* during the base term and then during each option period thereafter). However, the contracting officer, in his or her discretion, may require the Participant to meet the applicable limitation on subcontracting or comply with the nonmanufacturer rule for each order. ( 1 ) This includes Multiple Award Contracts that were set-aside or partially set-aside for 8(a) BD Participants.
( 2 ) For orders that are set aside for eligible 8(a) Participants under full and open contracts or reserves, the Participant must meet the applicable limitation on subcontracting requirement and comply with the nonmanufacturer rule, if applicable, for each order.
[81 FR 34260, May 31, 2016]
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 22

- 00098

- CV

VETS SECURING AMERICA

v. EDWARD SMITH

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 of Nueces County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2020CCV

- 60872

- 2

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having consid ered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Ma rch 31, 2022
Filed by Avantafile.com - The Parking REIT, Inc. - Exhibit 10.15









EX-10.15 - Second Amendment to Loan Agreement, dated December 8, 2020,
by and among certain subsidiaries of Parking REIT, Inc. as borrowers party thereto and LLC Warehouse V LLC as lender and
successor-in-interest to LoanCore Capital Credit REIT LLC






Please see PDF for document
reference
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6004

MAURICE JUGGINS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JANET WURIE, Nurse Practitioner; STAN BERRY, Sheriff; HARDY,

Nurse; MALIK, Dr.; QUINTANA, Lt.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior

District Judge. (1:07-cv-01126-TSE-TCB)

Submitted: April 14, 2008 Decided: May 1, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Maurice Juggins, Appellant Pro Se.

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

PER CURIAM:

Maurice Juggins, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district

court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000). In his informal appellate

brief, Juggins failed to address the district court’s basis for

dismissing his claims against Janet Wurie, Dr. Malik, and Nurse

Hardy. Therefore, Juggins has waived appellate review of those

claims. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (“The Court will limit its review to

the issues raised in the informal brief.”). We have reviewed the

record as to Juggins’ claims against the remaining Defendants and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court. Juggins v. Wurie, No. 1:07-cv-01126-

TSE-TCB (E.D. Va. Nov. 23, 2007). We also deny Juggins’ motions

for appointment of counsel and dismissal of payments for filing

fees. 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.

AFFIRMED
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 458

**Question 458:** Some Part 50 power reactor licensees have developed "weighted" or "effective" derived air concentration (DAC) values for airborne mixtures of radionuclides, on the basis that the mixtures are well known and relatively stable, as demonstrated through periodic analysis of primary sources (e.g., reactor coolant and other process fluids), airborne and removable contamination samples, and waste streams (i.e., 10 CFR 61 analysis). These weighted DACs utilize a known ratio of the readily detectable radionuclides in a mixture to the more-difficult-to-detect radionuclides, to infer the total activity and the DAC fraction of a mixture from gross counting methods (i.e., without having to do isotopic analysis of each and every sample). Given adequate quality control measures, is the use of such "weighted" or "effective" DACs acceptable for posting, survey and monitoring purposes?

**Answer:** Yes, in general, the "weighted" or "effective" DACs can be used for inferring the total activity and the DAC fraction of a mixture from gross counting methods provided that the method (s) for calculating the "weighted" or "effective" DACs (which are not described in the question) are appropriate, have been validated, and that the uses of these weighted / effective values are not inconsistent with other regulatory requirements, such as 10 CFR 20.1203, 10 CFR 20.1204, 10 CFR 20.1502, 10 CFR 20.1902, and the Footnotes and Note to Appendix B. The DAC values used in the calculation of the "weighted" or "effective" values (and the DAC values used for any other purpose) must be the values listed in Appendix B to Part 20 unless the licensee has obtained approval, under the provisions of 10 CFR 20.1204 (c) (2) or 20.2301, to use other values.

(References: 10 CFR 20.1501, 10 CFR 20.1203, 10 CFR 20.1204, 10 CFR 20.1502, 10 CFR 20.1902, Appendix B)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, December 12, 2017
#### § 107.100 Organizing a Section 301(c) Licensee.

Section 301(c) Licensee means a company licensed under section 301(c) of the Act. It may be organized as a for-profit corporation or as a limited partnership created in accordance with the special rules of § 107.160.
**Exhibit
      23**








Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


Callisto
      Pharmaceuticals, Inc.


New
      York,
      New York





We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
      Form
      S-8 (Nos. 333-119648 and 333-130716) and Form S-3 (Nos. 333-128254, 333-115471
      and 333-123863) of Callisto Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and subsidiaries of our report
      dated March 29, 2006, relating to the consolidated financial statements which
      appear in this Form 10-K. Our report contains an explanatory paragraph regarding
      the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.





/s/
      BDO
      Seidman, LLP





BDO
      Seidman, LLP


New
      York,
      NY





March
      29,
      2006
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 12, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 60632]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22766]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. 2004N-0132]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office 
of Management and Budget Approval; Premarket Approval of Medical 
Devices

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a 
collection of information entitled ``Premarket Approval of Medical 
Devices'' has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Robbins, Office of Management 
Programs (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, 
Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1223.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of July 9, 2004 (69 
FR 41505), the agency announced that the proposed information 
collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 
U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays 
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the 
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0231. 
The approval expires on September 30, 2007. A copy of the supporting 
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet 
at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets.

    Dated: October 4, 2004.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 04-22766 Filed 10-8-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
#### § 101.301 Who should receive information or allegations of waste, fraud, and abuse?

The Office of Inspector General should receive all information or allegations of waste, fraud, or abuse regarding SBA programs and operations.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-22763-CV-MIDDLEBROOKS

(CASE NO. 07-20155-CR-MIDDLEBROOKS)

PAULINO GRANDA, 

Movant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Lisette Reid’s Report, issued 

on September 3, 2021. (DE 28). The Report recommends denying Movant Paulino Granda’s 

Motion to Vacate, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255. Movant timely filed objections (DE 29), and the 

government responded (DE 30). 

I have conducted a de novo review of Judge Reid’s Report, the record in this case, and I 

have considered the applicable law. I have also considered Movant’s objections, and I find that 

they lack merit. Accordingly, I agree with Judge Reid’s recommendations and adopt her Report. 

Further, I find that Movant cannot make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right” sufficient to support the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

(1) The Report (DE 28) is ADOPTED.

(2) Movant’s Objections (DE 29) are OVERRULED.

(3) Movant’s Motion to Vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (DE 24) is DENIED.

(4) No certificate of appealability shall issue. 

Case 1:20-cv-22763-DMM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2021 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

(5) Final Judgment shall be entered by separate Order. 

SIGNED in West Palm Beach, Florida, this 29th day of September, 2021.

Donald M. Middlebrooks

United States District Judge

cc:

Honorable Lisette M. Reid

Joaquin E. Padilla, AFPD

Michael E. Gilfarb, AUSA

Case 1:20-cv-22763-DMM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2021 Page 2 of 2
----

----

|   | (1) | the      Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 2, 2010      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,      and |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | the      information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                      |                      |                                                                               |
|---------------------------|---------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                      | APPLETON      PAPERS INC. |
|                      |                      |                                                                               |
| Dated:      March 1, 2010 |                      |  /s/      Thomas J. Ferree                                               |
|                      | Name:                     |  Thomas      J. Ferree                                                        |
|                      | Title:                    |  Senior      Vice President Finance, Chief Financial Officer and    Treasurer |
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio BANEGAS-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-40597.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 23, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Molly E. Odom, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Antonio Banegas-Hernandez appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for unlawful presence in the United States following deportation. He argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). We need not *256decide the applicability of the plea-agreement waivers in this case because the issue that Banegas-Hernandez raises is foreclosed.

Banegas-Hernandez’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Banegas-Hernandez contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *AlmendarezTorres*in light of *Apprendi,*we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Banegas-Hernandez properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
CVPCP FY13 Projects, 7/14/2016

Project Proposed Activity Funding

S-6

Hydrologic Monitoring and 

Modeling of Hardpan Vernal 

Pools to Support 

Restoration Design

(cbec, inc. eco engineering)

The two main objectives are to identify 

the hydrologic differences between 

created and natural pools, and quantify 

the potential hydrologic impacts of 

created pools on adjacent natural pools 

in Butte and Placer Counties.

$103,606

S-11

Population Genetics 

Research, and Development 

of a Genetic Management 

Plan for the Callippe 

Silverspot Butterfly

(University of the Pacific)

The project would directly inform a 

genetic management plan for the 

Callippe silverspot butterfly by taking a 

comparative and multi-locus approach 

needed to address the question: Is the 

CSB suffering from human disturbance 

and habitat fragmentation?

$100,000

F-1

Ciervo Hills Giant Kangaroo 

Rat Habitat Protection 

Project – Martin Acquisition 

Phase II

(BLM, Marina)

Fee title acquisition of 1,522 acres on 

five parcels of the Martin Ranch to 

promote protection of giant kangaroo 

rat habitat in the central Ciervo Hills 

(also known as “K-Rat Flat”) as well as 

San Joaquin kit fox and San Joaquin 

woolly-threads in Fresno County. 

$421,888

(Note: The HRP 

is also 

contributing 

$579,437 for a 

total of 

$1,001,325) 

F-3

Acquisition of Lower Tule 

River Irrigation District 

Isolated Parcels Contiguous 

to Pixley National Wildlife 

Refuge

(Pixley NWR)

Fee title acquisition of 118 acres of 

Pixley Irrigation District lands for 

inclusion in the Pixley NWR to benefit 

Tipton kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit 

fox, and blunt-nosed leopard lizard in 

Tulare County.

$450,000

(Note: The HRP 

is also 

contributing 

$48,000 for a 

total of 

$498,000)

FY 2013 Allocation $1,472,000

Project Costs Total -$1,075,491

Program Administration & 

Overhead Costs Total

 -

$305,534

Carryover from FY 2012 +$4,000

Project Commitments 

from Prior Years 

-$94,975
###### Editorial Note on Part 134

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear at 72 FR 50042, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 134.713 When is the record closed?

The record will close when the time to file a response to an appeal petition expires pursuant to § 134.710.
HomeAbout NRCHow We RegulateResearch

# Radioactive Waste Safety Research

## Spent Fuel

NRC research is developing the technical basis to ensure the continued safe performance of long-term dry storage systems for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste under extended service conditions (20 to 100 years) and the structural integrity of spent fuel transport casks during severe accidents.

## Decommissioning and Waste Management

Research programs are developing tools for assessing the performance of decommissioning and waste management options. This research examines the potential mechanisms that could cause environmental movement of residual radioactivity remaining after license termination and provides computational methods to estimate the effects of such movement on the public.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, July 7, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Nuclear Reactor Safety Research
          - Nuclear Materials Safety Research
          - Radioactive Waste Safety Research
          - Fire Research Program
          - Accident Sequence Precursor (ASP) Program
          - The Radiation Protection Computer Code Analysis and Maintenance Program (RAMP)
          - The Code Application and Maintenance Program (CAMP)
          - Digital Instrumentation and Controls (I&C) Research
          - State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analyses (SOARCA)
          - Computer Codes
          - Obtaining the Codes
          - Navigating Space Nuclear Safety: The Role of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
          - Analysis of Cancer Risk in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, July 7, 2020
### §1631. Transfer to cure want of jurisdiction

Whenever a civil action is filed in a court as defined in section 610 of this title or an appeal, including a petition for review of administrative action, is noticed for or filed with such a court and that court finds that there is a want of jurisdiction, the court shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such action or appeal to any other such court (or, for cases within the jurisdiction of the United States Tax Court, to that court) in which the action or appeal could have been brought at the time it was filed or noticed, and the action or appeal shall proceed as if it had been filed in or noticed for the court to which it is transferred on the date upon which it was actually filed in or noticed for the court from which it is transferred.

(Added Pub. L. 97–164, title III, §301(a), Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 55; amended Pub. L. 115–332, §2, Dec. 19, 2018, 132 Stat. 4487.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–332 inserted "(or, for cases within the jurisdiction of the United States Tax Court, to that court)" after "any other such court".

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1982, see section 402 of Pub. L. 97–164, set out as an Effective Date of 1982 Amendment note under section 171 of this title.
Case 0:00-cr-06218-NCR Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2002 Page 1 of 1