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


                         List of Subsidiaries of
                        Graham Packaging Company 
                                                                          
                                                                        


                 Name                            Jurisdiction and Type of
                                                 Formation

                 GPC Capital Corp. I             Delaware corporation

                 GPC Sub GP LC                   Delaware limited liability
                                                 company

                 Graham Packaging Canada         Ontario corporation
                 Limited

                 Graham Packaging France         Pennsylvania general
                 Partners                        partnership

                 Graham Packaging France          French S.A.
                 Holdings S.A.

                 Graham Packaging France,        French S.A.
                 S.A.

                 Graham Packaging Italy,         Italian S.r.L.
                 S.r.L.

                 S.I.P. Srl                      Italian S.r.L.




                                  -1-
<PAGE>
<PAGE>

                 LIDO Plast-Graham SRL           Argentine S.r.L.

                 Graham Packaging Poland,        Pennsylvania limited
                 L.P.                            partnership

                 Masko Graham Spolka             Polish Ltda.
                 Z.O.O.

                 Graham Recycling Company        Pennsylvania limited
                                                 partnership

                 Graham Packaging Latin          Delaware limited liability
                 America, LLC                    company

                 Graham Brasil                   Brazilian Ltda.
                 Participacoes Ltda.

                 Graham Packaging do             Brazilian S.A.
                 Brasil Industria e
                 Comercio S.A.

                 Graham Packaging U.K.           England corporation
                 Ltd.

                 Graham Packaging                German LLC
                 Deutschland Gmbh

                 Graham Plastpak Plastic         Turkish LLC
                 Ambalaj A.S.

                 Graham Packaging Europe         French Societe
                 S.A.S.

                 Graham Emballages                French corporation
                 Plastiques S.A.

                 Resin Rio Comercio Ltda.        Brazil LLC



           Note:       Certain foreign subsidiaries' statutory shares are
                       not included in the Table above.  


                                    -2-
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 46 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 46

             To repeal the Klamath Tribe Judgment Fund Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 8, 2019

Mr. Merkley (for himself and Mr. Wyden) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
             To repeal the Klamath Tribe Judgment Fund Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Klamath Tribe Judgment Fund Repeal 
Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL.

    Public Law 89-224 (commonly known as the ``Klamath Tribe Judgment 
Fund Act'') (79 Stat. 897) is repealed.

SEC. 3. DISBURSEMENT OF REMAINING FUNDS.

    Notwithstanding any provision of Public Law 89-224 (79 Stat. 897) 
(as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act) 
relating to the distribution or use of funds, as soon as practicable 
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior 
shall disburse to the Klamath Tribe the balance of any funds that, on 
or before the date of enactment of this Act, were appropriated or 
deposited into the trust accounts for remaining legal fees and 
administration and per capita trust accounts, as identified by the 
Secretary of the Interior, under that Act (as in effect on the day 
before the date of enactment of this Act).
                                 <all>
```
§ 450.111 Wind weighting. ( a ) *Applicability.* This section applies to the use of wind weighting as a hazard control strategy for the flight of an unguided suborbital launch vehicle to meet the safety criteria of § 450.101(a), (b), and (c).
( b ) *Wind weighting safety system.* The flight of an unguided suborbital launch vehicle that uses a wind weighting safety system must meet the following: ( 1 ) The launcher azimuth and elevation settings must be wind weighted to correct for the effects of wind conditions at the time of flight to provide impact locations that will ensure compliance with the safety criteria in § 450.101; and
( 2 ) An operator must use launcher azimuth and elevation angle settings that ensures the rocket will not fly in an unintended direction accounting for uncertainties in vehicle and launcher design and manufacturing, and atmospheric uncertainties.
( c ) *Analysis.* An operator must— ( 1 ) Establish flight commit criteria and other flight safety rules that control the risk to the public from potential adverse effects resulting from normal and malfunctioning flight;
( 2 ) Establish any wind constraints under which flight may occur; and
( 3 ) Conduct a wind weighting analysis that establishes the launcher azimuth and elevation settings that correct for the windcocking and wind-drift effects on the unguided suborbital launch vehicle.
( d ) *Stability.* An unguided suborbital launch vehicle, in all configurations, must be stable throughout each stage of powered flight.
( e ) *Application requirements.* An applicant must submit in its application the following: ( 1 ) A description of its wind weighting analysis methods, including its method and schedule of determining wind speed and wind direction for each altitude layer;
( 2 ) A description of its wind weighting safety system including all equipment used to perform the wind weighting analysis; and
( 3 ) A representative wind weighting analysis using actual or statistical winds for the launch area and samples of the output.
Flight Safety Analyses
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S
NO. WR-88,493-02

EX P ARTE F EANYICHI EZEK WESI UVUKAN SI, App licant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1353181-A IN THE 174TH DIS TRICT COURT

F ROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Applicant was convicted of capital murder and sentenc ed to life imprisonment. T h e First Court of Appea ls aff

irmed h i s conviction. Uvuk ansi v. State , No. 01-14-00527- CR (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] J un e 2 , 2 016) (not desig nated for publication). Applicant filed this application for a writ of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district cler k forwa rded it to thi s Court. See T E X
. C O D E C R I M
. P R O C
. art. 11.07. Applicant contends, among other thi ng s, that trial counsel was ineffe ctive. The trial court adopted, in part, the State’s proposed finding s of fac t and conclusions of law and rec ommended that

we deny relief

. After we rec eived this a pplication, we rec eived a motion that Kim Og g , the Har ris County District Attorney , filed in the tr i al co u rt

. I n her motion, she reque sted that the District2

Attorney ’s Of

fi ce be rec used and that an attorney pro tem be appointed. Nothing in the rec ord indicates that the trial court ruled on her motion. Be fore disposing of this applica tion, we believe that t h e trial court should rule on Og g ’s m otion. Acc ording ly , this application is rema nded to the trial court. I f the trial court g rants Og g ’s motion, the District Attorney ’s Offic e is disqualified, and

an attorney pro tem is a

ppointed, the trial court shall make further finding s of fac t and conclusions of law and deter

mine whether trial co unsel was ineffe ctive. The trial court may make any other finding s and conc lusions that it deems a ppropriate in response to Applica nt’s claims. Wit hin ninety day s from the date of this order , the trial court shall rule on Og g ’s motion and

m ake further finding s of fact and conclusions of law, if it g rants Ogg ’s m otion. The dist rict clerk shall then immediately forwa rd to this Court the trial court’s finding s and conclusions and the rec ord develope d on rema

nd, including, among other things, aff idavi t s , m o tions, objections, proposed finding s and conc lusions, orders, and tra nscripts from hear ings and depositions. See T E X
. R. A P P
. P. 73.4(b)( 4). Any extensions of t i m e m u s t b e reque sted by the t rial court and obtained from thi s Court.

Filed: September 23, 2020 Do not publish
§ 102.160 Agency responsibilities. ( a ) The Agency will provide appropriate written or other guidance to Agency officials in carrying out this subpart, including the issuance of guidelines and instructions. The Agency will also take such administrative steps as may be appropriate to carry out the purposes and ensure the effective implementation of this subpart.
( b ) Before collecting a claim by means of administrative offset, the Agency must ensure that administrative offset is feasible, allowable and appropriate, and must notify the debtor of the Agency's policies for collecting a claim by means of administrative offset.
( c ) Whether collection by administrative offset is feasible is a determination to be made by the Agency on a case-by-case basis, in the exercise of sound discretion. The Agency shall consider not only whether administrative offset can be accomplished, both practically and legally, but also whether administrative offset will further and protect the best interests of the United States Government. In appropriate circumstances, the Agency may give due consideration to the debtor's financial condition, and it is not expected that administrative offset will be used in every available instance, particularly where there is another readily available source of funds. The Agency may also consider whether administrative offset would substantially interfere with or defeat the purposes of the program authorizing the payments against which offset is contemplated.
( d ) Administrative offset must be considered by the Agency only after attempting to collect a claim under 31 U.S.C. 3711(a).
[62 FR 55164, Oct. 23, 1997, as amended at 82 FR 11784, Feb. 24, 2017]
§ 437.71 Flight rules. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 76728 , Sept. 19, 2024.
( a ) Before initiating rocket-powered flight, a permittee must confirm that all systems and operations necessary to ensure that safety measures derived from §§ 437.55, 437.57, 437.59, 437.61, 437.63, 437.65, 437.67, and 437.69 are within acceptable limits.
( b ) During all phases of flight, a permittee must— ( 1 ) Follow flight rules that ensure compliance with §§ 437.55, 437.57, 437.59, and 437.61; and
( 2 ) Abort the flight if it would endanger the public.
( c ) A permittee may not operate a reusable suborbital rocket in a careless or reckless manner that would endanger any member of the public during any phase of flight.
( d ) A permittee may not operate a reusable suborbital rocket in areas designated in a Notice to Airmen under § 91.137, § 91.138, § 91.141, or § 91.145 of this title, unless authorized by: ( 1 ) Air Traffic Control; or
( 2 ) A Flight Standards Certificate of Waiver or Authorization.
( e ) For any phase of flight where a permittee operates a reusable suborbital rocket like an aircraft in the National Airspace System, a permittee must comply with the provisions of part 91 of this title specified in an experimental permit issued under this part.
# EUR-Lex - 31996R0396 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31996R0396

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 396/96 of 4 March 1996 amending Regulation (EC) No 2019/94 on imports of residues from the manufacture of starch from maize from the United States of America **

*
Official Journal L 054 , 05/03/1996 P. 0022 - 0023 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 396/96 of 4 March 1996 amending Regulation (EC) No 2019/94 on imports of residues from the manufacture of starch from maize from the United States of America

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organization of the market in cereals (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1863/95 (2), and in particular Article 9 (2) thereof,

Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 344/96 of 26 February 1996 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (3), inserts an additional note in chapter 23 describing certain mixtures eligible for import into the Community exempt from customs duties; whereas a special subheading was created in heading 2309 for that purpose;

Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 2019/94 (4), lays down special rules with a view to guaranteeing that the product imported is in conformity with the agreed customs code; whereas the product in question now falls within the new subheading introduced by Regulation (EC) No 344/96; whereas Regulation (EC) No 2019/94 should therefore be amended; whereas the impact of this amendment must not prejudice the effectiveness in full of licences issued prior to the entry into force of this Regulation with regard to the description of the product;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 2019/94 is hereby amended as follows:

1. the CN code '2303 10 19` given in Article 1 (1) and in Article 2 is replaced by '2309 90 20`.

2. in the Annex, the 'Certificate of Conformity` issued by the American industry is replaced by the document annexed hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

It shall apply from 8 September 1994.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 4 March 1996.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 181, 1. 7. 1992, p. 21.

(2) OJ No L 179, 29. 7. 1995, p. 1.

(3) OJ No L 49, 28. 2. 1996, p. 1.

(4) OJ No L 203, 6. 8. 1994, p. 5.

ANNEX

>REFERENCE TO A FILM>
Editorial Note on Part 47
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 47 appear at 75 FR 41979, July 20, 2010.

§ 47.61 Dealer's Aircraft Registration Certificates. ( a ) The FAA issues a Dealer's Aircraft Registration Certificate, AC Form 8050-6, to U.S. manufacturers and dealers to— ( 1 ) Allow manufacturers to make any required flight tests of aircraft.
( 2 ) Facilitate operating, demonstrating, and merchandising aircraft by the manufacturer or dealer without the burden of obtaining a Certificate of Aircraft Registration, AC Form 8050-3, for each aircraft with each transfer of ownership, under subpart B of this part.
( b ) A Dealer's Aircraft Registration Certificate is an alternative for the Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued under subpart B of this part. A dealer may, under this subpart, obtain one or more Dealer's Aircraft Registration Certificates in addition to his original certificate, and he may use a Dealer's Aircraft Registration Certificate for any aircraft he owns.
( c ) If a Dealer's Aircraft Registration Certificate for an aircraft registered under this subpart expires in accordance with § 47.71, the aircraft owner must submit an application for aircraft registration in accordance with § 47.31 or the assignment of registration number will be canceled in accordance with § 47.15(i)(2).
[Doc. No. 7190, 31 FR 4495, Mar. 17, 1966, as amended by Amdt. 47-9, 35 FR 802, Jan. 21, 1970; Amdt. 47-16, 37 FR 25487, Dec. 1, 1972; Amdt. 47-29, 75 FR 41982, July 20, 2010; Amdt. 47-33, 87 FR 71218, Nov. 22, 2022]
#### Timothy Dillon, Appellant, v Jacqueline Thomas et al., Respondents.

[697 NYS2d 336]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court; Queens County (Goldstein, J.), dated November 17, 1998, as granted the separate motions of the defendant Jacqueline Thomas and the defendants Enterprise Rent-A-Car and Elrac, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motions are denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

In support of their motions for summary judgment, the defendants submitted, *inter alia,*a report prepared by the plaintiffs radiologist which stated that a magnetic resonance image taken of the plaintiffs lumbar spine four days after the accident revealed “[djesiccation * * * at the L5-S1 level” and “[b]ulging to the L5-S1 intervertebral disc”. They further submitted the medical reports of the plaintiffs own treating *184orthopedist which specified the degree of limitation in the range of motion of the plaintiffs lumbar and cervical spines and asserted that these injuries are “causally related” to the subject accident and are permanent. Accordingly, the defendants’ respective motion papers failed to establish a prima facie case that the plaintiffs injuries were not serious within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see, Moreno v Delcid,*262 AD2d 464; *Faruque v Ponce,*259 AD2d 464; *Rosmarin v Lamontanaro,*238 AD2d 567; *Thomas v Joyner,*237 AD2d 347). Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Joy, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Principal Executive Officer  Required by Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b)  of the Exchange Act

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) of Advanstar Communications Inc. (the "Company") for the
year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph Loggia, Chief Executive 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 the best of my knowledge:



|By: |  | /s/JOSEPH LOGGIAJoseph Loggia
Chief Executive Officer |  | 
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------- |  | 

Date:
June 28, 2005

---



QuickLinks
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause number: 01-16-00079-CR

Style: Frederick Anthony Davis v. The State of Texas

Type of motion: Motion for rehearing

Party filing motion: Appellant

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is denied. 

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jane Bland

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Huddle. 

Date: May 9, 2017
Editorial Note on Part 21
Editorial Notes: 1. For miscellaneous amendments to cross references in this 21 see Amdt. 21-10, 31 FR 9211, July 6, 1966. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 21 appear at 74 FR 53384, Oct. 16, 2009.

§ 21.113 Requirement for supplemental type certificate. ( a ) If a person holds the TC for a product and alters that product by introducing a major change in type design that does not require an application for a new TC under § 21.19, that person must apply to the FAA either for an STC, or to amend the original type certificate under subpart D of this part.
( b ) If a person does not hold the TC for a product and alters that product by introducing a major change in type design that does not require an application for a new TC under § 21.19, that person must apply to the FAA for an STC.
( c ) The application for an STC must be made in the form and manner prescribed by the FAA.
[Doc. No. FAA-2006-25877, Amdt. 21-92, 74 FR 53387, Oct. 16, 2009; Doc. No. FAA-2018-0119, Amdt. 21-101, 83 FR 9169, Mar. 5, 2018]
#### § 1201.6 Representatives.

The term *representative* means any person or persons, labor union, organization, or corporation designated either by a carrier or group of carriers or by its or their employees, to act for it or them.
§ 67.409 Denial of medical certificate. ( a ) Any person who is denied a medical certificate by an aviation medical examiner may, within 30 days after the date of the denial, apply in writing to the Federal Air Surgeon, Attention: Manager, Aeromedical Certification Division, AAM-300, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73126, for reconsideration of that denial. If the person does not ask for reconsideration during the 30-day period after the date of the denial, he or she is considered to have withdrawn the application for a medical certificate.
( b ) The denial of a medical certificate— ( 1 ) By an aviation medical examiner is not a denial by the Administrator under 49 U.S.C. 44703.
( 2 ) By the Federal Air Surgeon is considered to be a denial by the Administrator under 49 U.S.C. 44703.
( 3 ) By the Manager, Aeromedical Certification Division, or a Regional Flight Surgeon is considered to be a denial by the Administrator under 49 U.S.C. 44703 except where the person does not meet the standards of §§ 67.107(b)(3) and (c), 67.109(b), or 67.113(b) and (c); 67.207(b)(3) and (c), 67.209(b), or 67.213(b) and (c); or 67.307(b)(3) and (c), 67.309(b), or 67.313(b) and (c).
( c ) Any action taken under § 67.407(c) that wholly or partly reverses the issue of a medical certificate by an aviation medical examiner is the denial of a medical certificate under paragraph (b) of this section.
( d ) If the issue of a medical certificate is wholly or partly reversed by the Federal Air Surgeon; the Manager, Aeromedical Certification Division; or a Regional Flight Surgeon, the person holding that certificate shall surrender it, upon request of the FAA.
[Docket No. 27940, 61 FR 11256, Mar. 19, 1996, as amended by Docket No. FAA-2022-1355, Amdt. No. 67-22, 87 FR 75845, Dec. 9, 2022
§ 25.1397 Color specifications. Each position light color must have the applicable International Commission on Illumination chromaticity coordinates as follows: ( a ) *Aviation red* — *y* is not greater than 0.335; and *z* is not greater than 0.002.
( b ) *Aviation green* — *x* is not greater than 0.440−0.320*y* ; *x* is not greater than *y*−0.170; and *y* is not less than 0.390−0.170*x*.
( c ) *Aviation white* —
*x* is not less than 0.300 and not greater than 0.540; *y* is not less than *x*−0.040; or *y* 0−0.010, whichever is the smaller; and *y* is not greater than *x* + 0.020 nor 0.636−0.400*x*; Where *y* 0 is the *y* coordinate of the Planckian radiator for the value of *x* considered.
[Doc. No. 5066, 29 FR 18291, Dec. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 25-27, 36 FR 12972, July 10, 1971]