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

                          COLUMBUS MCKINNIN CORPORATION
                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


Abell-Howe Crane, Inc. (US)
ASI of Australia Pty. Ltd. (Australia)
Audubon Export, Inc. (FSC) (US)
Automatic Systems, Inc. (US)
Automatic Systems Conveyors Limited (Canada)
Camlok Lifting Clamps Ltd. (UK)
CM Insurance Company, Inc. (US)
Columbus McKinnon Limited (Canada)
Columbus McKinnon Finance Corporation (Canada)
Duff-Norton Asia Pacific Pty. Ltd. (Singapore)
Egyptian-American Crane Co. (Joint Venture)(Egypt)
Endor, S.A. de C.V. (Mexico)
G. L. International inc. (US)
Gaffey, Inc. (US)
Handling Systems and Conveyors, Inc. (US)
Hangzhou LILA Lifting and Lashing Co. Ltd. (China)
Larco Industrial Services, Ltd. (Canada)
Larco Material Handling, Inc. (US)
LICO International Corporation (FSC)
LICO Steel, Inc. (US)
Manutention Connection (France)
Societe d'Exploitation des Raccords Gautier (France)
Spreckels Consolidated Industries, Inc. (US)
Spreckels Land Company, Inc. (US)
Spreckels Water Company, Inc. (US)
Spreckels Development Company, Inc. (US)
Univeyor A/S (Denmark)
Univeyor Conveying Systems Ltd. (UK)
Univeyor Electronic A/S (Denmark)
Yale Hangzhou Industrial Products (China)
Yale Industrial Products, Inc. (US)
Yale Industrial Products GmbH (Austria)
Yale Industrial Products Ltd. (UK)
Yale Industrial Products GmbH (Germany)
Yale Industrial Products Pty. Ltd. (South Africa)
Yale Industrial Products Asia (Thailand) Co. Ltd. (Thailand)
[Nos. 26346-7-II; 27834-1-II.

Division Two.

November 1, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Dewey Bruce Reed, *Appellant. In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of*Dewey Bruce Reed, *Petitioner.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Thurston County, No. 00-1-00449-8, Christine A. Pomeroy, J., entered August 15, 2000, together with a petition for relief from personal restraint. Judgment *affirmed*and petition *denied*by unpublished opinion per Houghton, J., concurred in by Quinn-Brintnall, A.C.J., and Armstrong, J.
#### § 61.425 How do I renew my flight instructor certificate?

If you hold a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating you may renew your certificate in accordance with the provisions of § 61.197.
Specimen Common Stock Certificate



 Exhibit 4.7 

	
	 











 

 
  
 The Corporation will furnish without charge to each stockholder who so requests the powers, designations, preferences, and relative, participating, optional, or other special rights of each class of stock or series thereof and the
qualifications, limitations, or restrictions of such preferences and/or rights. 
 The following abbreviations,
when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: 
 TEN COM - as tenants in common UNIF GIFT MIN ACT - Custodian 
 TEN ENT - as tenants by the entireties (Cust) (Minor) 
 JT TEN - as joint tenants with right of
under Uniform Gifts to Minors 
 survivorship and not as tenants Act 
 in common (State) 
 Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. 
 For value received, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto 
 PLEASE
INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER 
 IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE 
 (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE) 
 shares of the capital stock represented by the within Certificate, and does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint

 Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of
substitution in the premises. 
 Dated 
 NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY
PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER. 
 Signature(s) Guaranteed: 
 THE SIGNATURE(S) SHOULD BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN
ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17 Ad-15.
§ 1603.303 Briefs on appeal. ( a ) The appellant shall file a brief or other written statement within 30 days after the appeal is filed, unless the Commission otherwise directs.
( b ) All other parties may file briefs or other written statements within 30 days of service of the appellant's brief or statement.
( c ) Every brief or statement shall contain a statement of facts and a section setting forth the party's legal arguments. Any brief or statement in support of the appeal shall contain arguments or evidence that tend to establish that the dismissal, order, or decision: ( 1 ) Is not supported by substantial evidence;
( 2 ) Contains an erroneous interpretation of law, regulation, or material fact, or misapplication of established policy;
( 3 ) Contains a prejudicial error of procedure; or
( 4 ) Involves a substantial question of law or policy.
( d ) Appellate briefs shall not exceed 50 pages in length.
( e ) Filing and service of appellate briefs shall be made in accordance with § 1603.302(b) and (c).
[62 FR 17543, Apr. 10, 1997, as amended at 89 FR 47853, June 4, 2024]
[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).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****National Organic Program.**
 
2010
August
October
December
 
 
 
 
 
 
2011
February
April
September
December
 
 
SuDoc Number:A 88.77/2:
Item Number:0024-B-50 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000930417
 
January 12, 2018
#### EMERY v TOLEDO (City)

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Lucas Co

No. 2253.

Decided October 21, 1929

Mr. Chas. A Thatcher, Toledo, for Emery.

Messrs. Dudley Smith, Martin S. Dodd and Mark Winchester, all of Toledo, for City.

WILLIAMS, J.

It will be observed that the jury returned the verdict fixing the value of the property to be appropriated at the same amount as that given in the opinion of value expressed by the witness Wakefield and no other witness called by either of the parties fixed that sum as the value of the property in question nor did any witness testifiy to any sum as the value of such property that was approximately near to the value fixed by the witness Wakefield. Clearly, the first quoted statement of the court was erroneous in character and highly prejudicial and jve do not think it was cured in the statement latterly made by the court. In fact, in such latter' statement, the trial judge said in substance that he had known Mr. Wakefield for many years and knew that he lived out there and that he considered him a qualified witness. The trial judge went a good ways in expressing his own personal opinion as to the qualification of this expert witness and such statement was well calculated to influence the mind of the jury. Of course, the trial judge passes upon the preliminary qualification of an ex*684pert witness as to the value of real estate, but if he finds the witness is qualified he must base that finding on the evidence adduced. What the trial judge . said in the latter statement amounted to an expression of his own opinion as to the qualifications of this witness and was therefore erroneous and prejudicial in itself. The inference is plain that these erroneous and prejudicial statements were effective in inducing, the verdict which was returned. It is true that as a rule’ inadvertent remarks made by a trial judge may be cured by him by properly instructing the jury with regard thereto, but when we consider the facts and circumstances surrounding the trial of this .case, in the light „of the verdict returned, we are compelled to the conclusion that the court below erred to the prejudice of the plaintiff in error. We are mindful of the difficulties encountered by a trial judge in the course of a jury trial and know that inadvertent remarks may escape him in the heat of contest, and being conscious of the integrity of purpose and ability of the trial judge, we can justly offer no criticism of the conduct of the case, other than that the utterances were inadvertent.

Complaint is made that the court erred in refusing requests to charge before argument submitted by defendant below. We think upon retrial No. 14 should be given, although Nos. 12 and 13 cover in part the same ground.

We find no other error apparent upon the face of the record. For the reasons given the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Lloyd and Richards, JJ, concur.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-49580, 333-73147, 333-111038 and 333-108696 and Form S-3 No. 333-99429 and related Prospectus) of our reports dated June 26, 2007, with respect to the consolidatedfinancial statements of Korn/Ferry International, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Korn/Ferry International includedin this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended April 30, 2007. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Los Angeles, California 

June 26, 2007 

 

1
#### § 102.107 Notice of petition; service of petition.

Upon filing a petition, the General Counsel will simultaneously serve a copy thereof on all parties and must file a statement of service as provided by § 102.5(h).

[82 FR 11767, Feb. 24, 2017]
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on November 24, 1999, pursuant to section 6(a)  of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Rotorcraft Technology Association, Inc. (“RITA”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership status. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ; Ohio Aerospace Institute, Cleveland, OH; University of California, Los Angeles, CA; University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX; and West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV have been added as parties to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Rotorcraft Technology Association, Inc. (“RITA”) intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On September 28, 1995, Rotorcraft Technology Association, Inc. (“RITA”) filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on April 3, 1996 (61 FR 14817).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on January 7, 1999. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on March 19, 1999 (64 FR 13605).                

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 00-12041  Filed 5-11-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
§ ̈¦15 

§ ̈¦15 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

HiLine District 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

(ROS) Classifications

Alternatives A & E 

Maps depict the ROS 

classifications for Alternatives A

& E. The classifications are not

intended to confer authority,

responsibility, or jurisdiction 

over lands and waters that are 

not administered by the BLM.

Proposed classifications apply

only to BLM-administered lands 

Created by the Malta Field Office in April 2012 ¬ Albers Equal Area, NAD83, Meters 

Roaded Modified 

Roaded Natural 

Rural 

Semi-primitive Motorized 

Semi-primitive Non-Motorized 

RMP boundary

County Line 

Interstate 

Highway or State Route 

Town 

Glacier A All b be er rt taa National Park SSaass kka att cchheewwaan n

")232

GLACIER 

£¤89

Blackfeet Indian

Reservation

Browning Cut Bank TOOLE 

Shelby 

LIBERTY
 

HILL 

£¤2

VALLEY

BLAINE
 

Chinook 

Chester Havre 

Malta

Rocky Boy's Ft. Belknap

Indian Reservation Indian Reservation

CHOUTEAU
 

66 

191 

Fort Benton 

£¤

CMR National

Wildlife Refuge 

")

£¤87 Glasgow 

PHILLIPS
 

Alternative A 

0 25 50 

Miles 

1:1,750,000 

Alternative E

(Preferred) 

Map 2.8 

Fresno Area 

Little

Rocky

Mountains
 

Created by the Malta Field Office in December 2012 

Glasgow Area 

Glacier A All b be er rt taa National Park 

GLACIER SSaass kka att cchheewwaan n

")232

66 

£¤191

") £¤2

Browning Cut Bank TOOLE HILL 

Blackfeet Indian

Reservati

£¤89

on 

Shelby 

LIBERTY

Chester 

BLAINE
 

£¤

nd

2 

I

Chinook 

Havre 

Rocky Boy's Ft. Belknap Malta ian Reservation Indian Reservation

CHOUTEAU
 

This map is intended for display purposes. No warranty

is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for

individual or aggregate use with other data, or for 

purposes not intended by the BLM. This map may not 

meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product 

was developed through digital means and information 

may be updated without notification. 

£¤

") £¤87
 66
 

191 

Fort Benton 

CMR National

Wildlife Refuge 

Glasgow

PHILLIPS 

VALLEY
§ 89.110 Operation of standard remote identification unmanned aircraft. Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, a person may comply with the remote identification requirement of § 89.105 by operating a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft under the following conditions: ( a ) *Operational requirements.* A person may operate a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft only if the person operating the standard remote identification unmanned aircraft ensures that all of the following conditions are met: ( 1 ) From takeoff to shutdown, the standard remote identification unmanned aircraft must broadcast the message elements of § 89.305.
( 2 ) The person manipulating the flight controls of the unmanned aircraft system must land the unmanned aircraft as soon as practicable if the standard remote identification unmanned aircraft is no longer broadcasting the message elements of § 89.305.
( b ) *Standard remote identification unmanned aircraft requirements.* A person may operate a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft only if the unmanned aircraft meets all of the following requirements: ( 1 ) Its serial number is listed on an FAA-accepted declaration of compliance, or the standard remote identification unmanned aircraft is covered by a design approval or production approval issued under part 21 of this chapter and meets the requirements of subpart F of this part.
( 2 ) Its remote identification equipment is functional and complies with the requirements of this part from takeoff to shutdown.
( 3 ) Its remote identification equipment and functionality have not been disabled.
( 4 ) The Certificate of Aircraft Registration of the unmanned aircraft used in the operation must include the serial number of the unmanned aircraft, as per applicable requirements of parts 47 and 48 of this chapter, or the serial number of the unmanned aircraft must be provided to the FAA in a notice of identification pursuant to § 89.130 prior to the operation.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wells Real Estate Fund XII,
L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief Executive Officer of the
corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



| | (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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |                        
| |  | -----------------------
| |  | /s/ LEO F. WELLS, III  
| |  | Leo F. Wells, III      
| |  | Chief Executive Officer
| |  | November 11, 2010      



| |  |                        
| |  | -----------------------
| |  | /s/ DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS
| |  | Douglas P. Williams    
| |  | Chief Financial Officer
| |  | November 11, 2010
§ 325.12 Service of documents. Any person, except one filing individually as a consumer, who files a document under this part, including responses to the questionnaire, shall serve that document upon those listed in § 325.4(a) of this part and upon the following: ( a ) The governor of the State in which the eligible place is located;
( b ) Each air carrier providing scheduled service to the affected eligible place;
( c ) In the case of a responsive document, the one who filed the document to which it responds; and
( d ) The U.S. Postal Service, Assistant General Counsel, Transportation Division, Law Department, Washington, D.C. 20260.
[Docket No. 82, 50 FR 2434, Jan. 16, 1985, as amended by Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15938, Apr. 16, 2019]
1The Honorable Thomas M. Shanahan, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-1149

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * District of Nebraska. 

Jeffrey Allan Harrison, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: December 3, 1999

 Filed: December 9, 1999 

___________

Before BOWMAN, FAGG, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Allan Harrison appeals the judgment entered by the District Court1

following his guilty plea to drug offenses. For reversal, he argues that the District

Court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. Because there is no indication

in the record before us that Harrison entered into a conditional guilty plea, preserving

the right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion, we conclude Harrison has

waived his right to appeal the issue. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2); United States v.
-2-

Jennings, 12 F.3d 836, 839 (8th Cir. 1994); United States v. Stewart, 972 F.2d 216,

217-18 (8th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
§ 35.7 Features and characteristics. ( a ) The propeller may not have features or characteristics, revealed by any test or analysis or known to the applicant, that make it unsafe for the uses for which certification is requested.
( b ) If a failure occurs during a certification test, the applicant must determine the cause and assess the effect on the airworthiness of the propeller. The applicant must make changes to the design and conduct additional tests that the Administrator finds necessary to establish the airworthiness of the propeller.
[Amdt. 35-8, 73 FR 63346, Oct. 24, 2008]
§ 15.212 How is the amount of the award under this subpart calculated? ( a ) The amount allowable for damage to or loss of any item of property may not exceed the lowest of: ( 1 ) The amount requested by the claimant for the item as a result of its loss, damage or the cost of its repair;
( 2 ) The actual or estimated cost of its repair; or
( 3 ) The actual value at the time of its loss, damage, or destruction. The actual value is determined by using the current replacement cost or the depreciated value of the item since its acquisition, whichever is lower, less any salvage value of the item in question.
( b ) Depreciation in value is determined by considering the type of article involved, its cost, its condition when damaged or lost, and the time elapsed between the date of acquisition and the date of damage or loss.
( c ) Current replacement cost and depreciated value are determined by use of publicly available adjustment rates or through use of other reasonable methods at the discretion of the official authorized to issue a determination upon the claim in question.
( d ) Replacement of lost or damaged property may be made in kind wherever appropriate.
( e ) At the discretion of the official authorized to issue the determination upon the claim in question, a claimant may be required to turn over an item alleged to have been damaged beyond economical repair to the United States, in which case no deduction for salvage value will be made in the calculation of actual value.
( f ) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, settlement of claims under the MPCECA is final and conclusive.