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

                       NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
                          AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES
                       ----------------------------------
                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
                             AS OF OCTOBER 31, 1999

                                                                STATE OR
                                                               COUNTRY IN
                                                                  WHICH
                                                               SUBSIDIARY
                                                                ORGANIZED
                                                                ---------

Subsidiary included in the financial statements,
  which is 100% owned:
    Navistar International Transportation Corp..........        Delaware


Subsidiaries that are 100% owned by Navistar
  International Transportation Corp.:
    Navistar International Corporation Canada...........         Canada
    Navistar Financial Corporation......................        Delaware

     Subsidiaries  and corporate  joint  ventures not shown by name in the above
listing,  if  considered  in the  aggregate  as a single  subsidiary,  would not
constitute a significant subsidiary.

                                       E-11
#### (A) Canton Savings and Loan Association, Respondent, v. John W. Harrington et al., Appellants. (B) In the Matter of the Claim of David Wahl, Appellant, v. Tods Shipyards et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent. (C) In the Matter of the Claim of Alexine Walton, Appellant, v. Fred Fehlhaber Corp. et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent. (D) Carolyn H. Kirby et al., Appellants, v. Bessie Chase, Respondent. (E) In the Matter of the Claim of Antoinette Elio, Appellant, v. Gordon Baking Company et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent. (F) In the Matter of the Claim of Lydia S. Sperling, Appellant, v. Mrs. William T. Kissell et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent. (G) In the Matter of the Claim of Edith M. Johnston, Appellant, v. Arthur R. Mann, Doing Business as 300 Club, et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent. (H) In the Matter of the Claim of Joseph Trebec, Respondent, v. Paul P. Biase et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent. (I) In the Matter of the Claim of Mary Maslen, Appellant, v. Carrier Corporation et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Motion[s] to dismiss appeal [s] granted, by default, without costs.
###### Editorial Note on Part 250

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

#### § 250.288 When and how must I submit the Conceptual Plan?

You must submit four copies, or one hard copy and one electronic version, of the Conceptual Plan to the Regional Director after you have decided on the general concept(s) for development and before you begin engineering design of the well safety control system or subsea production systems to be used after well completion.
#### § 33.5 [Reserved]
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Charles Curatalo, Respondent. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Appellant.

The Industrial Commissioner appeals from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirming a Referee’s decision which reversed a determination of the Industrial Commissioner denying benefits to claimant for a period of seven weeks on the ground he lost Ms employment because of an industrial controversy in the establishment in which he was employed. (Unemployment Insurance Law, § 592, subd. 1 [Labor Law, art. 18].) Both parties agree that the only issue is whether the strike involved here occurred in the establishment in which claimant was employed. Claimant’s employer was engaged in two separate and different enterprises. It operated a steel fabrication plant at one location in the City of Rochester, New York. It also operated a construction business and engaged in erecting and installing steel structures at various sites in and around Rochester, but not physically connected or adjacent to its fabrication plant. Claimant was employed at the fabrication plant. The group of construction workers engaged in construction at various sites were members of one union. T'he steel workers employed at the fabrication plant were members of another union. Each group operated under a separate and distinct contract. On June 16, 1958 the construction workers’ union called a stoke of construction workers. Picket lines were thrown around the various construction projects. There was no strike and no picket line at the fabrication plant where claimant worked, or by the union of which he was a member. Because the employer was unable to cross picket lines to deliver finished steel to construction sites, and because of lack of storage space at the fabrication plant, a production cut-back became necessary, and on July 25, 1958 the employer laid qff claimant and several other steel workers at the fabrication plant, but continued to operate with about three-fourths of its work force to fabricate *841steel for sale to others. Neither the claimant, his union, nor the physical plant where he was employed, was involved in any way with the strike. The strike did not occur at the “place” where claimant was employed, and the question at issue would seem squarely answered by *Matter of Machcinslci*[Com] (277 App. Div. 634.) (See, also, *Matter of Ferrara*[Gatherwood], 11 A D 2d 171.) Appellant relies heavily upon *Matter of Lasher*[Com] (279 App. Div. 505). The *Lasher*case does nothing but reaffirm the principles of the *Machcinslci*case, but turned upon the point that under the particular circumstances there the construction workers were actually working inside the physical plant where the steel workers went on strike. .Decision unanimously affirmed, with costs to respondent. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32

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 Quarterly Report of Simon Property Group, L.P. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending
September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|/s/ David SimonDavid Simon
Chief Executive Officer
of Simon Property Group, Inc.,
General Partner of Simon Property Group, L.P.
November 15, 2004                 | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|/s/ Stephen E. SterrettStephen E. Sterrett
Chief Financial Officer
of Simon Property Group, Inc.,
General Partner of Simon Property Group, L.P.
November 15, 2004 | 

32

---



QuickLinks
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, John M. Leask, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Executive Officer of White Knight Resources Ltd.. (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1. This Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.



Date: December 31, 2004



/s/  John M. Leask

John M. Leask

Chief Executive Officer













#
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of NeoMedia Technologies, Inc., a Delaware
      corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Frank Pazera,
      does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
      (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), 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 operation of the Company.





*/s/ Frank Pazera*Frank Pazera
              Chief Financial Officer
              May 15, 2008
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.1602 Applicability. ( a ) The requirements of this subpart P are applicable to all exploration, development, and production operations under an OCS sulphur lease. Sulphur operations include all activities conducted under a lease for the purpose of discovery or delineation of a sulphur deposit and for the development and production of elemental sulphur. Sulphur operations also include activities conducted for related purposes. Activities conducted for related purposes include, but are not limited to, production of other minerals, such as salt, for use in the exploration for or the development and production of sulphur. The lessee must have obtained the right to produce and/or use these other minerals.
( b ) Lessees conducting sulphur operations in the OCS shall comply with the requirements of the applicable provisions of subparts A, B, C, I, J, M, N, O, and Q of this part and the applicable provisions of 30 CFR 550 subparts A, B, C, J and N.
( c ) Lessees conducting sulphur operations in the OCS are also required to comply with the requirements in the applicable provisions of subparts D, E, F, H, K, and L of this part and the applicable provisions of 30 CFR 550, subpart K, where such provisions specifically are referenced in this subpart.
§ 594.3 Definitions. *Empowerment zone* means an area designated by HUD as an Empowerment Zone under 26 U.S.C. 1391-1393.
*Enterprise community* means an area designated by HUD as an Enterprise Community under 26 U.S.C. 1391-1393.
*Grantee* means an eligible neighborhood organization that executes a grant agreement with HUD under this part.
*Low- and moderate-income persons* means families and individuals whose incomes do not exceed 80 percent of the median income for the area, as determined by the Secretary of HUD in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 5302(a)(20).
*Neighborhood development funding organization* means: ( 1 ) A depository institution, the accounts of which are insured pursuant to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 1811 *et seq.,* or the Federal Credit Union Act, 12 U.S.C. 1751 *et seq.,* and any subsidiary (as such term is defined in 12 U.S.C. 1813(w)) thereof;
( 2 ) A depository institution holding company and any subsidiary (as such term is defined in 12 U.S.C. 1813(w)) thereof; or
( 3 ) A company at least 75 percent of the common stock of which is owned by one or more insured depository institutions or depository institution holding companies.
*Neighborhood development organization* means the same as the term is defined in § 594.5.
*Rural neighborhoods.* In small cities with under 10,000 in population and in rural areas, a neighborhood area can be the same unit as the unit of general local government.
*Unit of general local government* means a city, town, township, county, parish, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a State; an urban county; the Federated States of Micronesia; the Marshall Islands; or a general purpose political subdivision thereof.
[60 FR 16359, Mar. 29, 1995, as amended at 61 FR 5211, Feb. 9, 1996]
§ 285.111 When and how does BSEE charge me processing fees on a case-by-case basis? ( a ) BSEE will charge a processing fee on a case-by-case basis under the procedures in this section with regard to any application or request under this part if we decide at any time that the preparation of a particular document or study is necessary for the application or request and it will have a unique processing cost. ( 1 ) Processing costs will include contract oversight and efforts to review and approve documents prepared by contractors, whether the contractor is paid directly by the applicant or through BSEE.
( 2 ) We may apply a standard overhead rate to direct processing costs.
( b ) We will assess the ongoing processing fee for each individual application or request according to the following procedures: ( 1 ) Before we process your application or request, we will give you a written estimate of the proposed fee based on reasonable processing costs.
( 2 ) You may comment on the proposed fee.
( 3 ) You may: ( i ) Ask for our approval to perform, or to directly pay a contractor to perform, all or part of any document, study, or other activity according to standards we specify, thereby reducing our costs for processing your application or request; or
( ii ) Ask to pay us to perform, or contract for, all or part of any document, study, or other activity.
( 4 ) We will then give you the final estimate of the processing fee amount with payment terms and instructions after considering your comments and any BSEE-approved work you will do. ( i ) If we encounter higher or lower processing costs than anticipated, we will re-estimate our reasonable processing costs following the procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section, but we will not stop ongoing processing unless you do not pay in accordance with paragraph (b)(5) of this section.
( ii ) Once processing is complete, we will refund to you the amount of money that we did not spend on processing costs.
( 5 ) ( i ) Consistent with the payment and billing terms provided in the final estimate, we will periodically estimate what our reasonable processing costs will be for a specific period and will bill you for that period. Payment is due to us 30 days after you receive your bill. We will stop processing your document if you do not pay the bill by the date payment is due.
( ii ) If a periodic payment turns out to be more or less than our reasonable processing costs for the period, we will adjust the next billing accordingly or make a refund. Do not deduct any amount from a payment without our prior written approval.
( 6 ) You must pay the entire fee before we will issue the final document or take final action on your application or request.
( 7 ) You may appeal our estimated processing costs in accordance with the regulations in 43 CFR part 4. We will not process the document further until the appeal is resolved, unless you pay the fee under protest while the appeal is pending. If the appeal results in a decision changing the proposed fee, we will adjust the fee in accordance with paragraph (b)(5)(ii) of this section. If we adjust the fee downward, we will not pay interest.
#### § 18.40 Cable clamps and grips.

Insulated clamps shall be provided for all portable (trailing) cables to prevent strain on the cable terminals of a machine. Also insulated clamps shall be provided to prevent strain on both ends of each cable or cord leading from a machine to a detached or separately mounted component. Cable grips anchored to the cable may be used in lieu of insulated strain clamps. Supporting clamps for cables used for wiring around machines shall be provided in a manner acceptable to MSHA.
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.862 Fire and gas-detection systems. For production processing areas only: ( a ) You must install fire (flame, heat, or smoke) sensors in all enclosed classified areas. You must install gas sensors in all inadequately ventilated, enclosed classified areas. ( 1 ) Adequate ventilation is defined as ventilation that is sufficient to prevent accumulation of significant quantities of vapor-air mixture in concentrations over 25 percent of the lower explosive limit. An acceptable method of providing adequate ventilation is one that provides a change of air volume each 5 minutes or 1 cubic foot of air-volume flow per minute per square foot of solid floor area, whichever is greater.
( 2 ) Enclosed areas (e.g., buildings, living quarters, or doghouses) are defined as those areas confined on more than 4 of their 6 possible sides by walls, floors, or ceilings more restrictive to air flow than grating or fixed open louvers and of sufficient size to allow entry of personnel.
( 3 ) A classified area is any area classified Class I, Group D, Division 1 or 2, following the guidelines of API RP 500 (incorporated by reference as specified in § 250.198), or any area classified Class I, Zone 0, Zone 1, or Zone 2, following the guidelines of API RP 505 (incorporated by reference as specified in § 250.198).
( b ) All detection systems must be capable of continuous monitoring. Fire-detection systems and portions of combustible gas-detection systems related to the higher gas-concentration levels must be of the manual-reset type. Combustible gas-detection systems related to the lower gas-concentration level may be of the automatic-reset type.
( c ) A fuel-gas odorant or an automatic gas-detection and alarm system is required in enclosed, continuously manned areas of the facility which are provided with fuel gas. A gas detection system is not required for living quarters and doghouses that do not contain a gas source and that are not located in a classified area.
( d ) The District Manager may require the installation and maintenance of a gas detector or alarm in any potentially hazardous area.
( e ) Fire- and gas-detection systems must be an approved type, and designed and installed in accordance with API RP 14C, API RP 14G, API RP 14F, API RP 14FZ, API RP 500, and API RP 505 (all incorporated by reference as specified in § 250.198), provided that, if compliance with any provision of those standards would be in conflict with applicable regulations of the U.S. Coast Guard, compliance with the U.S. Coast Guard regulations controls.
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
Youhave reached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection(FDLP/EC) Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in theFDLP/EC. Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suiteof cataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications (CGP).
**Title:****Generic aging lessons learned (GALL)report.
 
Vol. 1.Summary | Vol. 2Tabulation of Results
 
SuDoc Number: Y3.N 88:10/1801/REV.1/V.1-2
Item Number:1051-H-48 (online)
CGP System Number:001011179
 
 
 
** 
**Permanent Public Access
** 
Title 44 of  the United States Code (44 U.S.C. Section 1911) stipulates that public access  to official Government information products disseminated through the Federal  Depository Library Program (FDLP) must be maintained permanently in regional  depository libraries and by depository libraries not served by a regional  library. Since online products are not physically distributed to depository  libraries for retention, GPO has assumed responsibility for the provision of  permanent access to Government information products residing on FDsys  servers.
GPO's  permanent public access commitment is also met by bringing  agency-disseminated Internet resources under the purview of GPO and  incorporating them into a digital archive. GPO captures copies of agency  electronic information products, and creates PURLs so that users will be  automatically redirected to the archived products if the information is no  longer accessible on the agency Web site. Please refer to the report Managing  the FDLP Electronic Collection: A Policy and Planning Document for more  information.
 
August 16, 2017********
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-2376

CLARA LEWIS BROCKINGTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

KIMBRELL’S FURNITURE OF FLORENCE; MIKE ELLIS, Store Manager; 

KIMBRELL’S CORPORATE OFFICE; TERRY PETERS, Vice President; CAROL 

FAIRCLOTH, Regional Manager; CINDY MORRISON, Credit Manager; 

FORTEGRA INSURANCE CO. LIFE OF SOUTH; VIVIAN GOHERTRY, Claims 

Dept.; FAST FURNITURE REPAIRS; RON EASLEY, Store Manager; RICK S. 

KAHLBAUGH, CEO Fortegra Life,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

LACY DE TEMPLE, Kimbrell’s Claim Dept.; JOSIE WHEELER, Store Manager 

of Sam’s Furniture; S.C. DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE; DIANE COOPER, 

Insurance Manager of S.C. Department of Insurance; NANDI J. CHOLER, 

Insurance Analyst, S.C. Dept. of Insurance,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. 

R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (4:20-cv-03270-RBH)

Submitted: March 14, 2022 Decided: March 23, 2022

Before WYNN and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2376 Doc: 5 Filed: 03/23/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clara Lewis Brockington, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2376 Doc: 5 Filed: 03/23/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Clara Lewis Brockington appeals the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing her complaint without prejudice. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Brockington v. Kimbrell’s Furniture of Florence, No. 

4:20-cv-03270-RBH (D.S.C. Nov. 19, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2376 Doc: 5 Filed: 03/23/2022 Pg: 3 of 3