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



ACTUATE CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIES

as of December 31, 2008



|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Subsidiary Name                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|Actuate Asia Pacific Pty. Ltd. Actuate Canada Corporation Actuate Cayman Limited Actuate Pte. Limited Actuate Software GmbH Actuate International Sarl Actuate International Corporation Actuate Japan Co., Ltd. Actuate Limited Actuate Software (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. Actuate UK Ltd. Nimble Technology, Inc. Tidestone Technologies, Inc. |  | Australia Canada Cayman Islands Singapore Germany Switzerland State of Delaware, United States of America Japan Hong Kong Peoples Republic of China United Kingdom State of Delaware, United States of America State of Kansas, United States of
America
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

DAT/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NOEL PHILLIPE SCOTT,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

D. K. SISTO,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 07-16583

D.C. No. CV-05-02646-JW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

James Ware, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 16, 2010** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Noel Phillipe Scott appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We

have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

FILED

MAR 08 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
DAT/Research 2 07-16583

Scott contends that the district court erred by denying him statutory tolling. 

This contention fails because the California superior court denied Scott’s petition

as untimely, and therefore his state petition was not “properly filed,” as required by

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 554 U.S. 408, 417 (2005); see

also Townsend v. Knowles, 562 F.3d 1200, 1205 (9th Cir. 2009).

 Scott further contends that he was entitled to equitable tolling because his

delays in filing were caused by his lack of access during various time periods to his

legal materials, and the law library. The district court did not err by determining

that he was not entitled to equitable tolling because he failed to meet his burden of

demonstrating that extraordinary circumstances rather than his own lack of

diligence caused the untimeliness of his federal habeas petition. See WaldronRamsey v. Pacholke, 556 F.3d 1008, 1013-14 (9th Cir. 2009). 

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32





SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certify that this Form 10-QSB of Next, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Next, Inc.







Date:  July 7, 2005

By:/s/  William B. Hensley III

William B. Hensley III

Chief Executive Officer





Date:  July 7, 2005

By:/s/  Charles L. Thompson

Charles L. Thompson

Chief Financial Officer

Chief Accounting Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

Inconnection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of theCompany for the period ended September 30, 2005, I, Anthony J. Gould, ExecutiveVice President, Chief Financial and Chief Accounting Officer of  the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  that:

 

(1)           such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof the Company for the period ended September 30, 2005, fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           the information contained in suchQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September 30,2005, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of Western Sierra Bancorp.

 

 

Dated:  November 7, 2005

 
|   | /s/ Anthony J. Gould                    |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Chief  Financial and Accounting Officer |   |
|        |                                         |        |  |  |

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-41341

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALEJANDRO SANCHEZ-GOMEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:13-CR-62-1

Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Alejandro Sanchez-Gomez

(Sanchez) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Sanchez has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 29, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-41341 Document: 00512818636 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/29/2014
No. 13-41341

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 13-41341 Document: 00512818636 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/29/2014
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Arch Chemicals, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Louis S. Massimo, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------
|                                                     
|/s/    Louis S. Massimo                              
|                                                     
|Louis S. Massimo Chief Financial Officer
 May 7, 2004



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Arch Chemicals, Inc. and will be retained by Arch Chemicals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.2



Written Statement of the Chief Financial Officer



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350



Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, I, the
undersigned Controller of Americas Power Partners, Inc. (the Company) hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report of Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended December 31, 2003 (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report presents fairly, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                           
|---------------------------
|                           
|/s/ Jerome P. Frett        
|Jerome P. Frett, Controller
|January 19, 2005
#### BANCROFT *v.*BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN.

Appeal and Error — Demurrer—Judgment—Necessity.

Want of a final judgment in a personal injury action is fatal to the review of the ease on error and, in the absence of any showing that judgment had been later entered, the writ must be dismissed.

*169Error to Washtenaw; Kinne, J.

Submitted April 4, 1916.

(Docket No. 4.)

Decided June 23, 1916.

Case by Mary Bancroft against the board of regents of the University of Michigan and another for personal injuries. Judgment for defendants sustaining separate demurrers. Plaintiff brings error.

Writ dismissed.

*Albert E. Sherman,*for appellant.

*Cavanaugh & Burke,*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff filed her suit to recover damages for personal injuries which she claims to have incurred and which she avers were occasioned by the negligence of defendants. The defendants demurred to the declaration, and after argument the same was sustained. This was followed by the issuance of a writ of error from this court without any final judgment having been entered in the trial court, and, so far as the record shows, we are not advised that a final judgment has since been entered therein. Under this state of facts the practice will not permit of a review of the case in this court. *Green*v. *Eaton Probate Judge,*40 Mich. 244; *Delaney*v. *Lumber Co.,*144 Mich. 351 (108 N. W. 77); *Barribeau*v. *City of Detroit,*146 Mich. 392 (109 N. W. 665); *In re Vetter’s Estate,*162 Mich. 109 (127 N. W. 306).

The writ will be dismissed, with costs to appellee.
§ 406.5 Administrative law judge's recommended decision in license, permit, and payload actions. ( a ) The Associate Administrator, who shall make the final decision on the matter at issue, shall review the recommended decision of the administrative law judge. The Associate Administrator shall make such final decision within thirty days of issuance of the recommended decision.
( b ) The authority and responsibility to review and decide rests solely with the Associate Administrator and may not be delegated.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 9, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 26750]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11554]



[[Page 26750]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[COTP Western Alaska 00-001]
RIN 2115-AA97


Safety Zone; Kachemak Bay, Alaska; Correction

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Temporary final rule; correction of effective dates.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects the effective dates of temporary final 
rule (COTP Western Alaska 00-001) which published April 28, 2000. The 
temporary final rule establishes a temporary 200-yard radius safety 
zone around the M/V SWAN to ensure the safe and timely anchoring, 
loading, and departure of vessels and a barge operating in Kachemak 
Bay.

DATES: As of May 4, 2000, the effective dates of the temporary rule 
published at 65 FR 24874 are corrected to 12:01 a.m. on May 11, 2000 
until 11:59 p.m. on May 13, 2000. The correction to Sec. 165.T17-00-001 
is effective from May 11, 2000 until May 13, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Commander Rick Rodriguez, 
Chief of Port Operations, USCG Marine Safety Office, Anchorage, at 
(907) 271-6724.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 28, 2000, the Coast Guard published a temporary final rule 
entitled Safety Zone; Kachemak Bay, Alaska, in the Federal Register (65 
FR 24874) to be effective from 12:01 a.m. on May 4, 2000, until 11:59 
p.m. on May 9, 2000. The Coast Guard has been notified that the 
estimated time of arrival of the M/V SWAN has been changed to May 10, 
2000.

Need for Modification

    As published, the effective date of the temporary final rule is now 
incorrect and therefore needs to be changed to reflect the new arrival 
time of M/V SWAN.

Modification of Publication

    Accordingly, the publication on April 28, 2000 of the temporary 
final rule (COTP Western Alaska 00-001), which is the subject of FR 
Doc. 00-10607, is corrected as follows:
    1. On page 24874, in the second column, in the DATES section, lines 
2 and 3, correct the dates ``May 4, 2000''and ``May 9, 2000'' to read 
``May 11, 2000'' and ``May 13, 2000'' respectively.


Sec. 165.T17-00-001  [Corrected]

    2. On page 24875, in the second column, in Sec. 165.T17-00-001, 
paragraph (b), lines 2 and 3, correct the dates ``May 4, 2000'' and 
``May 9, 2000'' to read ``May 11, 2000'' and ``May 13, 2000'' 
respectively.

    Dated: May 2, 2000.
R. Rodriguez,
LCDR, U.S. Coast Guard, COTP, Western Alaska, Acting.
[FR Doc. 00-11554 Filed 5-4-00; 3:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
###### Editorial Note on Part 399

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 399 appear at 84 FR 15947, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 399.19 [Reserved]
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4582 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 548
116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4582

 To extend, temporarily, daylight saving time, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 15, 2020

    Mr. Rubio (for himself and Mr. Scott of Florida) introduced the 
             following bill; which was read the first time

                           September 16, 2020

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend, temporarily, daylight saving time, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME.

    For each State and area of a State that is not exempt from section 
3(a) of the Uniform Time Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 260a(a)), such section 
shall be carried out in calendar years 2020 and 2021 as if the periods 
described in such section for such calendar years described just one 
period that commenced at 2 o'clock antemeridian on March 8, 2020, and 
ends at 2 o'clock antemeridian on November 7, 2021.
                                                       Calendar No. 548

116th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 4582

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To extend, temporarily, daylight saving time, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 16, 2020

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar
```
§ 27.625 Fitting factors. For each fitting (part or terminal used to join one structural member to another) the following apply: ( a ) For each fitting whose strength is not proven by limit and ultimate load tests in which actual stress conditions are simulated in the fitting and surrounding structures, a fitting factor of at least 1.15 must be applied to each part of— ( 1 ) The fitting;
( 2 ) The means of attachment; and
( 3 ) The bearing on the joined members.
( b ) No fitting factor need be used— ( 1 ) For joints made under approved practices and based on comprehensive test data (such as continuous joints in metal plating, welded joints, and scarf joints in wood); and
( 2 ) With respect to any bearing surface for which a larger special factor is used.
( c ) For each integral fitting, the part must be treated as a fitting up to the point at which the section properties become typical of the member.
( d ) Each seat, berth, litter, safety belt, and harness attachment to the structure must be shown by analysis, tests, or both, to be able to withstand the inertia forces prescribed in § 27.561(b)(3) multiplied by a fitting factor of 1.33.
[Doc. No. 5074, 29 FR 15695, Nov. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 27-35, 63 FR 43285, Aug. 12, 1998]
#### Robert Mugge, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. Henry B. Brackin, *Defendant in Error.*

On Rehearing.

Per Curiam.

— The statements contained in the demurrer to the evidence do not show contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

It clearly appears that the plaintiff knew the defendant was rapidly driving down Twigg Street making a noise, and that the plaintiff turned into Jefferson Street but did not know the defendant had turned into that street behind him until it was too late to avoid the injury, and that “the defendant was driving in a run or gallop and whipping his horse when coming on Twigg Street to said crossing, and continued to do so until after plaintiff was struck”

A rehearing is denied.
*Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 95-31321

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSEPH E. FRYAR,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CA-3549

_________________________________________________________________

JULY 17, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Joseph E. Fryar, #06590-035, appeals the district court's

dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for abuse of the procedure

and the denial of his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

on appeal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Fryar argues that the

district court lacked territorial jurisdiction over the 31 U.S.C.

§§ 5313(a) and 5322(b) offenses for failure to file a currency

transaction report.
-2-

Fryar has failed to show cause for not raising his claim in

his previous motion; therefore, this court need not consider

whether there is prejudice. See United States v. Flores, 981 F.2d

231, 234-35 (5th Cir. 1993). Further, failure to hear his claim

would not result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice because he

has not asserted his innocence. See Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S.

333, 339 (1992). The district court did not abuse its discretion

in dismissing Fryar's second § 2255 motion as abusive.

The district court did not err in denying Fryar's motion for

leave to proceed IFP because he can present no legal points

arguable on their merits. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20

(5th Cir. 1983).

A F F I R M E D.
#### §§ 435.52-435.60 [Reserved]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. CP98-159-005]

Take notice that on May 1, 2000, El Paso Natural Gas Company (El Paso) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1-A, the following tariff sheets, with an effective date of May 1, 2000.

Third Revised Sheet No. 117

Fifth Revised Sheet No. 118

                    El Paso states that the tariff sheets are being filed to implement the settlement approved by the Commission at Docket No. CP98-159-003,                     *et al.*                     The tendered tariff sheets are proposed to become effective May 1, 2000.                

Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-11625  Filed 5-9-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M