alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[No. 27459-1-II.

Division Two.

December 6, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Rudolph Perry, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 00-1-00123-3, Kathryn J. Nelson, J., entered June 1, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, J., concurred in by Houghton and Bridgewater, JJ.
§ 1625.4 Help wanted notices or advertisements. ( a ) Help wanted notices or advertisements may not contain terms and phrases that limit or deter the employment of older individuals. Notices or advertisements that contain terms such as *age 25 to 35, young, college student, recent college graduate, boy, girl,* or others of a similar nature violate the Act unless one of the statutory exceptions applies. Employers may post help wanted notices or advertisements expressing a preference for older individuals with terms such as *over age 60, retirees,* or *supplement your pension.*
( b ) Help wanted notices or advertisements that ask applicants to disclose or state their age do not, in themselves, violate the Act. But because asking applicants to state their age may tend to deter older individuals from applying, or otherwise indicate discrimination against older individuals, employment notices or advertisements that include such requests will be closely scrutinized to assure that the requests were made for a lawful purpose.
[72 FR 36875, July 6, 2007]
633 A.2d 403

#### ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. Carl J. SACKS.

Misc. Docket (Subtitle BV) No. 49,

Sept. Term, 1993.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Dec. 3, 1993.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Consent to Disbarment from the practice of law filed by Carl J. Sacks, in accordance with Maryland Rule BV 12d2, and the written recommendation of Bar Counsel, it is this 3rd day of December, 1993

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that Carl J. Sacks be, and he is hereby, disbarred by consent from the further practice of law in the State of Maryland; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name of Carl J. Sacks from the register of attorneys, and pursuant to Maryland Rule BV13, shall certify that fact to the Trustees of the Clients’ Security Trust Fund and the clerks of all judicial tribunals in the State.
(LOGO) ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Report of Independent Public Accountants

To the Board of Directors of Star Bank, N.A.:

       We  have  examined   management's   assertion  about  Star  Bank,  N.A.'s
compliance  with the minimum  servicing  standards  identified  in the  Mortgage
Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage
Bankers (USAP) and that Star Bank, N.A. had in effect a fidelity bond and errors
and omissions policy in the amounts of $25,000,000 and $5,000,000, respectively,
for  the  period  January  1,  1998  to  February  28,  1998,   $25,000,000  and
$10,000,000,  respectively,  for the period  March 1, 1998 to November 19, 1998,
and $50,000,000 and $25,000,000,  respectively, for the period November 20, 1998
to December 31, 1998,  included in the  accompanying  Statement of  Management's
Assertion  Regarding  Compliance with Servicing  Standards of the Uniform Single
Attestation  Program for Mortgage  Bankers.  Management is responsible  for Star
Bank,  N.A.'s  compliance  with  those  minimum  servicing   standards  and  for
maintaining a fidelity bond and errors and omissions policy.  Our responsibility
is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the entity's compliance
with the minimum  servicing  standards  and  maintenance  of a fidelity bond and
errors and omissions policy based on our examination.

        Our examination was made in accordance with the standards established by
the  American  Institute  of  Certified  Public  Accountants  and,  accordingly,
included examining, on a test basis, evidence about Star Bank, N.A.'s compliance
with the minimum servicing  standards and performing such other procedures as we
considered  necessary  in the  circumstances.  We believe  that our  examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a
legal  determination on Star Bank,  N.A.'s compliance with the minimum servicing
standards.

        In our opinion,  management's  assertion that Star Bank,  N.A.  complied
with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards and that Star Bank, N.A. had
in effect a  fidelity  bond and errors and  omissions  policy in the  amounts of
$25,000,000  and  $5,000,000,  respectively,  for the period  January 1, 1998 to
February 28, 1998,  $25,000,000 and  $10,000,000,  respectively,  for the period
March  1,  1998  to  November  19,  1998,  and  $50,000,000   and   $25,000,000,
respectively,  for the period  November 20, 1998 to December 31, 1998, is fairly
stated, in all material respects.

Arthur Andersen
Cincinnati, Ohio,
March 26, 1999
§ 13.57 Administrative Review Board proceedings. ( a ) *Authority* — ( 1 ) *General.* The Administrative Review Board has jurisdiction to hear and decide in its discretion appeals concerning questions of law and fact from investigative findings letters of the Administrator issued under § 13.51(c)(1) or the final sentence of § 13.51(c)(2)(ii), Administrator's rulings issued under § 13.58, and decisions of Administrative Law Judges issued under § 13.55.
( 2 ) *Limit on scope of review.* ( i ) The Administrative Review Board shall not have jurisdiction to pass on the validity of any provision of this part. The Administrative Review Board is an appellate body and shall decide cases properly before it on the basis of substantial evidence contained in the entire record before it. The Administrative Review Board shall not receive new evidence into the record.
( ii ) The Equal Access to Justice Act, as amended, does not apply to proceedings under this part. Accordingly, the Administrative Review Board shall have no authority to award attorney's fees and/or other litigation expenses pursuant to the provisions of the Equal Access to Justice Act for any proceeding under this part.
( b ) *Decisions.* The Administrative Review Board's decision shall be issued within a reasonable period of time following receipt of the petition for review and shall be served upon all parties by mail to the last known address and on the Chief Administrative Law Judge (in cases involving an appeal from an Administrative Law Judge's decision).
( c ) *Orders.* If the Board concludes a violation occurred, an order shall be issued mandating action to remedy the violation, including, but not limited to, any monetary or equitable relief described in § 13.44. Where the Administrator has sought imposition of debarment, the Administrative Review Board shall determine whether an order imposing debarment is appropriate. The ARB's order is subject to discretionary review by the Secretary as provided in Secretary's Order 01-2020 (or any successor to that order).
[85 FR 30617, May 20, 2020]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          21,447
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         325,031
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                25,250
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                    12
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     63,712
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          11,726
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            11,652
<LOANS>                                        295,275
<ALLOWANCE>                                    (4,153)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 450,070
<DEPOSITS>                                     411,220
<SHORT-TERM>                                     1,900
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,846
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,812
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,292
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 450,070
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 20,389
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,372
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,178
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                24,939
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              10,181
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,540
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           14,399
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    (480)
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 12,247
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,284
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,825
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,825
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .81
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,331
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,331
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,793
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    (189)
<RECOVERIES>                                        69
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                4,153
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             4,153
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1 I, Carl E. Vogel, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Renaissance Media Group LLC, Renaissance Media (Louisiana)
LLC, Renaissance Media (Tennessee) LLC and Renaissance Media
Capital Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light
of the circumstances under which such statements were made,
not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present
in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrants as of, and for,
the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrants and have:  (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and
procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under
our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrants,
including their consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    [Reserved];(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the
end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the
case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial
information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that
involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting. Date: March 25, 2004 /s/
Carl E. Vogel
Carl E. Vogel
Chief Executive Officer
## NUMBER 

## l3-16-00347-CR COURT OF

## APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF

## TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI 

## . EDINBURG LUIS 

### ARMANDO CARREON,

THE 

### STATE OF 

### TEXAS, 

### v Appellant, Appellee. On appeal 

### from the 389th 

### District Gourt 

### of Hidalgo 

### County, Texas. 

# ORDER Before Chief 

### Justice Valdez and 

### Justices Contreras and Hinojosa



### Order by

### Justice Hinojosa On January 11,2018, this Court issued an opinion andjudgmentthat reversed the 

### trial court's

### judgment revoking Luis Armando Carreon's community supervision and rendered ajudgment discharging Carreon from community 

### supervision. The trial court judgment that this Court reversed also sentenced Carreon tofour years' imprisonment in

### the Texas Department 

## of Criminal Justice-lnstitutional Division 

### (TDCJ-ID). That

sentence 

### has been invalidated by 

### this Court's 

### judgment. As 

### a result 

### of this Court's opinion and judgment and

### the State's failure

### to appear 

### in any

### way before 

### this Court, Carreon is entitled to immediate post-judgment relief. 

## It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 

### and DECREED

### that Luis Armando Carreon be released from confinement at the TDCJ-ID instanter. It isso ORDERED LETICIA HINOJ Justice Delivered and filed the 11th day ofJanuary,2018

2
§ 1910.151 Medical services and first aid. ( a ) The employer shall ensure the ready availability of medical personnel for advice and consultation on matters of plant health.
( b ) In the absence of an infirmary, clinic, or hospital in near proximity to the workplace which is used for the treatment of all injured employees, a person or persons shall be adequately trained to render first aid. Adequate first aid supplies shall be readily available.
( c ) Where the eyes or body of any person may be exposed to injurious corrosive materials, suitable facilities for quick drenching or flushing of the eyes and body shall be provided within the work area for immediate emergency use.
Appendix A to § 1910.151—First aid kits (Non-Mandatory) First aid supplies are required to be readily available under paragraph § 1910.151(b). An example of the minimal contents of a generic first aid kit is described in American National Standard (ANSI) Z308.1-1998 “Minimum Requirements for Workplace First-aid Kits.” The contents of the kit listed in the ANSI standard should be adequate for small worksites. When larger operations or multiple operations are being conducted at the same location, employers should determine the need for additional first aid kits at the worksite, additional types of first aid equipment and supplies and additional quantities and types of supplies and equipment in the first aid kits. In a similar fashion, employers who have unique or changing first-aid needs in their workplace may need to enhance their first-aid kits. The employer can use the OSHA 300 log, OSHA 301 log, or other reports to identify these unique problems. Consultation from the local fire/rescue department, appropriate medical professional, or local emergency room may be helpful to employers in these circumstances. By assessing the specific needs of their workplace, employers can ensure that reasonably anticipated supplies are available. Employers should assess the specific needs of their worksite periodically and augment the first aid kit appropriately. If it is reasonably anticipated that employees will be exposed to blood or other potentially infectious materials while using first aid supplies, employers are required to provide appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) in compliance with the provisions of the Occupational Exposure to Blood borne Pathogens standard, § 1910.1030(d)(3) (56 FR 64175). This standard lists appropriate PPE for this type of exposure, such as gloves, gowns, face shields, masks, and eye protection.
[39 FR 23502, June 27, 1974, as amended at 63 FR 33466, June 18, 1998; 70 FR 1141, Jan. 5, 2005; 76 FR 80739, Dec. 27, 2011]
§ 18.52 Protective orders. ( a ) *In general.* A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may file a written motion for a protective order. The motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without the judge's action. The judge may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following: ( 1 ) Forbidding the disclosure or discovery;
( 2 ) Specifying terms, including time and place, for the disclosure or discovery;
( 3 ) Prescribing a discovery method other than the one selected by the party seeking discovery;
( 4 ) Forbidding inquiry into certain matters, or limiting the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters;
( 5 ) Designating the persons who may be present while the discovery is conducted;
( 6 ) Requiring that a deposition be sealed and opened only on the judge's order;
( 7 ) Requiring that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a specified way; and
( 8 ) Requiring that the parties simultaneously file specified documents or information in sealed envelopes, to be opened as the judge directs.
( b ) *Ordering discovery.* If a motion for a protective order is wholly or partly denied, the judge may, on just terms, order that any party or person provide or permit discovery.
§ 18.101 Scope. These rules govern formal adversarial adjudications of the United States Department of Labor conducted before a presiding officer. ( a ) Which are required by Act of Congress to be determined on the record after opportunity for an administrative agency hearing in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 554, 556 and 557, or
( b ) Which by United States Department of Labor regulation are conducted in conformance with the foregoing provisions, to the extent and with the exceptions stated in § 18.1101. *Presiding officer,* referred to in these rules as *the judge,* means an Administrative Law Judge, an agency head, or other officer who presides at the reception of evidence at a hearing in such an adjudication.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23
- 1624

In re: KENNETH ROSHAUN REID , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Rock Hill . ( 0:04

- cr - 00353

- CMC

- 1 )

Submitted : July 17, 2023 Decided: August 10, 2023

Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Petition s denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
Kenneth Roshaun Reid, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1624 Doc: 13 Filed: 08/10/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Kenneth Roshaun Reid petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order from this
court directing the district court to issue a r uling on his motions vacated in a prior appeal and ordering his release from custody . We conclude that Reid is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. D ist. Ct. , 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004); In re Murphy

- Brown,
LLC , 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and “has no other adequate means to attain the relief [he ] desires.” Murphy

- Brown , 907 F.3d at 795 ( cleaned up ). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. I n re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). The relief sought by Reid is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petitions for a writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court a nd argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION S DENIED USCA4 Appeal: 23-1624 Doc: 13 Filed: 08/10/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
Exhibit 21.1



ACTUATE CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIES

as of December 31, 2009



|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Subsidiary Name                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|Actuate Asia Pacific Pty. Ltd. Actuate Canada International 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