alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1



                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

The active subsidiaries of Day International Group, Inc. are listed below, do
business under the name under which they are organized, and are included in the
consolidated financial statements of the Company. The names, jurisdiction of
incorporation of such subsidiaries, and percentage of voting securities owned by
the Company are set forth below.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                              Jurisdiction in              Percentage of Voting
        Name of subsidiary                  which Incorporated               Securities owned
        ------------------                  ------------------               ----------------
     <S>                                         <C>                              <C>
     Day International, Inc.                        Delaware                        100%
     Day Holdings I, Inc.                           Delaware                        100% (1)
     Day Holdings II, Inc.                          Delaware                        100% (1)
     Day International (U.K.)                    United Kingdom                     100% (3)
         Holdings Limited
     Day International (U.K.),                   United Kingdom                     100% (2)
         Ltd.
     Day International (Canada)                  Ontario, Canada                    100% (1)
         Holdings Limited
     Day International                               France                         100% (1)
         France S.A.R.L
     Day International                               Germany                        100% (1)
        (BRD) Gmbh
     Day International de Mexico                     Mexico                         100% (1)
         S.A. de C.V.
            
             (1)  Subsidiaries of Day International, Inc.
             (2)  Subsidiary of Day International (U.K.) Holdings Limited
             (3)  Subsidiary of Day Holdings I, Inc. and Day Holdings II, Inc.
</TABLE>





                                       91
# C_2014093EN.01002101.xml

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/21

---

Action brought on 6 February 2014 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-60/14)

2014/C 93/34

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and Ι. Zerbas, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Decision (1) of the European Commission of 24 May 2011, since it has not taken within the prescribed time-limit all the measures necessary for the recovery of unlawful State aid from the Casinos of Mont Parnès, Corfu and Thessaloniki, and, in any event, since it has not fully informed the Commission of the exact amount to be recovered (principal and interest) from all the beneficiaries of the unlawful State aid and of the other measures which it took in accordance with Article 4 of the Decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Decision (1) of the European Commission of 24 May 2011, since it has not taken within the prescribed time-limit all the measures necessary for the recovery of unlawful State aid from the Casinos of Mont Parnès, Corfu and Thessaloniki, and, in any event, since it has not fully informed the Commission of the exact amount to be recovered (principal and interest) from all the beneficiaries of the unlawful State aid and of the other measures which it took in accordance with Article 4 of the Decision;

1

| — | order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | The Hellenic Republic is obliged to have recovered the unlawful State aid by 25 September 2011. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Hellenic Republic is obliged to have recovered the unlawful State aid by 25 September 2011.

| 2. | The Hellenic Republic is obliged to have informed the Commission of the action which it has undertaken in order to recover the unlawful State aid, and the total amount to be recovered, by 25 July 2011. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Hellenic Republic is obliged to have informed the Commission of the action which it has undertaken in order to recover the unlawful State aid, and the total amount to be recovered, by 25 July 2011.

| 3. | The Hellenic Republic has not fulfilled any of the above obligations within the prescribed time-limits. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Hellenic Republic has not fulfilled any of the above obligations within the prescribed time-limits.

---

(1)  Decision of 24 May 2011 on State aid to certain Greek casinos C-16/10 implemented by the Hellenic Republic (OJ 2011 L 285, pp 25-45)

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 878
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 878 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 878.5030 Natural nonabsorbable silk surgical suture. ( a ) *Identification.* Natural nonabsorbable silk surgical suture is a nonabsorbable, sterile, flexible multifilament thread composed of an organic protein called fibroin. This protein is derived from the domesticated species *Bombyx mori* (*B. mori*) of the family *Bombycidae.* Natural nonabsorbable silk surgical suture is indicated for use in soft tissue approximation. Natural nonabsorbable silk surgical suture meets the United States Pharmacopeia (U.S.P.) monograph requirements for Nonabsorbable Surgical Suture (class I). Natural nonabsorbable silk surgical suture may be braided or twisted; it may be provided uncoated or coated; and it may be undyed or dyed with an FDA listed color additive.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special control for this device is FDA's “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Surgical Sutures; Guidance for Industry and FDA.” See § 878.1(e) for the availability of this guidance document.
[58 FR 57558, Oct. 26, 1993, as amended at 68 FR 32985, June 3, 2003]
Editorial Note on Part 866
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 866 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 866.3210 Endotoxin assay. ( a ) *Identification.* An endotoxin assay is a device that uses serological techniques in whole blood. The device is intended for use in conjunction with other laboratory findings and clinical assessment of the patient to aid in the risk assessment of critically ill patients for progression to severe sepsis.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special control for this device is the FDA guidance entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Endotoxin Assay.” See § 866.1(e) for the availability of this guidance document.
[68 FR 62008, Oct. 31, 2003. Redesignated at 70 FR 53069, Sept. 7, 2005]
RE: Draft list of potential minor EGUs 

 Higgins, Cortney 

 to: RobertJ Wayland 

 03/09/2011 08:48 AM 

 Cc: Peter Tsirigotis, Bill Maxwell 

 

Hi Bob, 

Two requests: 

- In response to the draft area source language, can you specify what 

kind of information/circumstances would warrant the use of 112(d)(5) 

standards for area sources? We understand it's discretionary, but 

there's little information given as to when/why the agency would use that 

discretion. 

- With the answer to the above question, can you expand the request for 

comment section to include that information? That should help to improve 

the comments that you receive on this issue. 

Thanks, 

Cortney 

-----Original Message----- 

From: Maxwell.Bill@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Maxwell.Bill@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 12:49 PM 

To: Higgins, Cortney 

Cc: Wayland.Robertj@epamail.epa.gov; Blake.Wendy@epamail.epa.gov; 

Tsirigotis.Peter@epamail.epa.gov; Versace.Paul@epamail.epa.gov; 

Culligan.Kevin@epamail.epa.gov 

Subject: Draft list of potential minor EGUs 

Cortney -- 

Attached are the spreadsheet presenting the current draft information on 

potential minor-source EGUs and the revised preamble language. 

Thank you. 

(See attached file: Draft area source language_030811.docx)(See attached 

file: Minor source estimate_030711.xlsx) 

Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt 

Bill Maxwell 

Energy Strategies Group 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

U.S. EPA Mail Code D243-01 

109 T.W. Alexander Drive 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Phone: 919-541-5430 

FAX: 919-541-5450
Editorial Note on Part 872
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 872 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 872.6730 Endodontic dry heat sterilizer. ( a ) *Identification.* An endodontic dry heat sterilizer is a device intended to sterilize endodontic and other dental instruments by the application of dry heat. The heat is supplied through glass beads which have been heated by electricity.
( b ) *Classification.* Class III.
( c ) *Date premarket approval application* (*PMA*) *or notice of completion of product development protocol* (*PDP*) *is required.* A PMA or notice of completion of a PDP is required to be filed with the Food and Drug Administration on or before April 21, 1997, for any endodontic dry heat sterilizer that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or that has on or before April 21, 1997, been found to be substantially equivalent to the endodontic dry heat sterilizer that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976. Any other endodontic dry heat sterilizer shall have an approved PMA or declared completed PDP in effect before being placed in commercial distribution.
[52 FR 30097, Aug. 12, 1987, as amended at 62 FR 2902, Jan. 21, 1997; 62 FR 31512, June 10, 1997]
#### The NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee/cross-appellant, v. The UNITED STATES, Appellant/cross-appellee.

Appeal Nos. 85-2755, 85-2810.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 15, 1986.

David Pincus, Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., argued for appellant/cross-appellee. With him on brief were Roger M. Olsen, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Michael L. Paup and Gary R. Allen.

George R. Abramowitz, Sutherland, As-bill & Brennan, Washington, D.C., argued for appellee/cross-appellant. With him on brief were Francis M. Gregory, Jr. and Michael R. Miles, of counsel. Michael J. Jones and John M. Bremer, Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., Milwaukee, Wis., of counsel.

Before DAVIS, BALDWIN, and NEWMAN, Circuit Judges.

BALDWIN, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is from a decision of the United States Claims Court, holding that certain insurance company state income taxes are deductible under 26 U.S.C. § 804(c), and granting plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.

The parties’ arguments are thoroughly treated in the lower court’s opinion in consolidated cases numbered 441-80T and 125-82T, dated March 7, 1985, 7 Cl.Ct. 501 (1985). We affirm on the basis of that opinion.

AFFIRMED.
### M A N D A T E

TO THE 93RD DISTRICT COURT of HIDALGO COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 20th day of

November, 2014, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Martina D. Rodriguez, Appellant,

v.

Luis Antonio Pimentel and Petronila

M. Pimentel Appellees.

CAUSE NO. 13-14-00273-CV (Tr.Ct.No. C-2785-07-B)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause

remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Costs

of the appeal are adjudged against appellees.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

      

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 18th day of May, 2015.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK
EX-10.2



 EXHIBIT 10.2 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is dated and effective as of April 27,
2017, by and between Medallion Financial Corp. (the “Company”) and Andrew Murstein (the “Executive”). 
 WHEREAS, the
Company and the Executive are parties to that certain First Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, dated May 29, 1998 (the “Existing Agreement”); and 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive have agreed, subject to the terms and conditions of this Amendment, that the Existing Agreement be
amended to reflect certain agreed upon revisions to the terms of the Existing Agreement. 
 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the
foregoing and for other good and valuable consideration and with the intention of hereby being legally bound, the parties hereby agree as follows: 

1. Defined Terms. Except as otherwise indicated herein, all words and terms defined in the Existing Agreement shall have the same
meanings when used herein. 
 2. Amendment. Section 5.4(ii) of the Existing Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced
with the following: 
 “Subject to subsection (iv) of this Section 5.4, in lieu of any further salary payments to the
Executive for periods subsequent to the Date of Termination, the Company shall pay as severance pay to the Executive a lump sum cash payment equal to the remainder of the salary, bonus and value of the fringe benefits which the Executive would be
entitled to receive for the balance of the Employment Period, which shall be calculated by multiplying the average of the Executive’s total salary, bonus and value of the fringe benefits for the prior three fiscal years by the fractional number
of years remaining on the Executive’s Employment Period.” 
 3. Limited Effect. Except as expressly amended and modified by
this Amendment, the Existing Agreement shall continue to be, and shall remain, in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. 
 4.
Governing Law. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware. 
 [Signature
Page Follows.] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the day and year set forth
above. 
  

			
	MEDALLION FINANCIAL CORP.
		
	 By:
	 	 /s/Larry D. Hall

		
	 Name:
	 	 Larry D. Hall

		
	 Title:
	 	 Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer

	
	ANDREW MURSTEIN
	
	 /s/Andrew Murstein



  
 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          49,427
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,938,269
<ALLOWANCES>                                   146,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,371,239
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,377,417
<PP&E>                                       6,763,131
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,073,634
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,658,236
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,740,486
<BONDS>                                      2,633,773
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           417
<OTHER-SE>                                 (4,184,142)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,658,236
<SALES>                                      4,235,929
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,235,929
<CGS>                                        4,226,354
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,226,354
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                70,768
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                40,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             212,787
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,118,721)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,118,721)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            (2,118,721)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,118,721)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.05)
Page 1 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION IX 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105

MEMO 

SUBJECT: Record of Communication with SPI-Anderson 

TO: SPI-Anderson PSD Permit Administrative Record 

FROM: Shaheerah Kelly, Environmental Engineer 

 U.S. EPA, Region 9, Air Division, Permits Office 

DATE: April 18, 2014 

This memo summarizes a phone discussion between Shaheerah Kelly of EPA Region 9 and Tony 

Jaegel of Sierra Pacific Industries-Anderson Division (SPI-Anderson) on April 18, 2014 

regarding the alternative fate of forest residues and mill waste produced at the SPI-Anderson 

facility other than bioenergy. 

Forest residues 

 Include tree limbs, merchantable trees, other tree waste. 

 Fate would be “slash burning” or “open pile burning” which means collecting this material in 

a pile and burning it. 

 Placer County AQMD study concluded that using this material to generate energy was more 

beneficial than open pile burning and mitigates wildfire size and severity. See 

http://www.placer.ca.gov/departments/air/apcdbiomass. 

 

Mill Waste 

 Three categories of mill waste: chips, sawdust and bark 

 Chips have been used in the pulp mill/market. There were 4 in the vicinity of the facility and 

all are currently shut down (was located in Antioch, Anderson, and two in Eureka, CA). 

Thus, this market no longer exists in the vicinity of the facility. A small quantity is exported 

overseas. Generally chips are used for cogeneration (i.e., burned onsite to generate steam 

and electricity, or sent to other cogeneration plants). 

 Sawdust can be sent to the particle board and oriented strand board markets. Currently only 

one particleboard facility in Martle, CA in El Dorado County in the vicinity of the SPIAnderson facility. The Martle facility buys sawdust from different mills. There were two 

other particle/oriented strand board facilities (in Oroville and Arcata, CA) but both are 

currently shut down. Market for sawdust is dependent on market for consuming it. Market 
Page 2 

has been reduced since two plants have been shut down, and only one is currently still 

operating. 

 Bark is used for landscaping. There is a landscaping plant in Sonora, CA where loads of bark 

can be taken to be cut down in size and colored for landscaping purposes. 

Overall 

 Forest residues – alternative fate other than bioenergy is open pile burning. 

 Mill waste, if not burned onsite, is a “tremendous challenge to deal with commercially.” The 

market for accepting mill waste has been reduced. There is an overflow of mill waste and 

forest residues (for example, currently mill waste and forest residues are burned at 

Anderson’s 4 MW cogen unit, some materials are sent to SPI’s Shasta Lake 2 MW cogen 

unit, and more material is sent to other plants).
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7767 

To amend the Uniform Code of Military Justice to expand the definition 

of aiding the enemy to include the provision of military education, military training, and tactical advice. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 21, 2024 

Mr. LUTTRELL (for himself, Mr. DELUZIO, Ms. SLOTKIN, and Mr. STRONG) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Uniform Code of Military Justice to expand 

the definition of aiding the enemy to include the provision of military education, military training, and tactical 

advice. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Safeguarding Tactics 

5 and Operational Procedures from Enemies Act of 2024’’ 

6 or the ‘‘STOP Enemies Act of 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7767 IH

1 SEC. 2. AIDING THE ENEMY DEFINITION FOR PURPOSES OF 

2 THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. 

3 Section 903b(2) of title 10, United States Code (arti4 cle 103b(2) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice) is 

5 amended by inserting ‘‘provides military education, mili6 tary training, or tactical advice to,’’ after ‘‘gives intel7 ligence to,’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NESTOR C. DOMINGO, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

MEGAN J. BRENNAN, Postmaster General 

Pacific Area United States Postal Service, 

Agency, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-16784 

D.C. No. 3:11-cv-05333-CRB 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 8, 2017**

Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Nestor C. Domingo appeals pro se from the district court’s order taxing costs

in his federal employment action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

We review for an abuse of discretion. Bravo v. City of Santa Maria, 810 F.3d 659, 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAY 10 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-16784 

665 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

To the extent Domingo challenges the district court’s authority to award 

costs in this case, this court previously resolved this issue in Domingo v. Brennan, 

639 F. App’x 418, 420 (9th Cir. 2016), and we are bound by this determination. 

See S. Or. Barter Fair v. Jackson County, 372 F.3d 1128, 1136 (9th Cir. 2004) 

(“The law of the case doctrine . . . precludes a court from reexamining an issue 

previously decided by . . . a higher court in the same case.”). Contrary to 

Domingo’s contention, defendant’s amended bill of costs, filed after this court’s 

mandate issued, was not untimely, and our mandate did not preclude the district 

court from recalculating the amount of the costs award. See Stevens v. F/V Bonnie 

Doon, 731 F.2d 1433, 1435 (9th Cir. 1984) (“The mandate is controlling as to all 

matters within its compass, but leaves to the district court any issue not expressly 

or impliedly disposed of on appeal.”).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.