alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 21

      
                LACLEDE GAS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

                  SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



                                                         PERCENT OF 
                                                       VOTING STOCK
                                                           OWNED
                                                       ------------
                                                          


Subsidiaries of Laclede Gas Company (Parent)

   Laclede Pipeline Company                                 100%  
   Laclede Investment Corporation*                          100%
   Laclede Development Company**                            100% 

  *Subsidiary Company of Laclede Investment Corporation
       Laclede Energy Resources, Inc.                       100%
   Subsidiary Company of Laclede Energy Resources, Inc.     100%
       Laclede Gas Family Services, Inc.
***Subsidiary Company of Laclede Development Company
       Laclede Venture Corp.                                100%             
  
All of the above corporations have been organized under the laws of the
State of Missouri.
























 
                                  
                                    68
#### § 1910.505 Severability.

Each section of this subpart U, and each provision within those sections, is separate and severable from the other sections and provisions. If any provision of this subpart is held to be invalid or unenforceable on its face, or as applied to any person, entity, or circumstance, or is stayed or enjoined, that provision shall be construed so as to continue to give the maximum effect to the provision permitted by law, unless such holding shall be one of utter invalidity or unenforceability, in which event the provision shall be severable from this subpart and shall not affect the remainder of the subpart.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 3 - 10 7 3 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 2 -NM - 039 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: 

### 120L 12 - 36 **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, list latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
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.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [FRL-6605-3] 

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meetings. 

# SUMMARY:

                        Under section 10(a)(2) of Public Law 920423, “The Federal Advisory Committee Act,” notice is hereby given of a series of meetings of the Microbial and Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Advisory Committee established under the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. S300f                         *et seq.*). All meetings are scheduled from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. eastern time, and will be held at RESOLVE, Inc., 1255 23rd Street, NW, Suite 275 Washington DC 20037. The meetings are open to the public, but due to past experience, seating will be limited.                     

The meetings are scheduled for: June 1-2, to discuss results of Technical Working Group analysis; June 27-28, to continue discussions on results of Technical Working Group analysis; and draft Agreement in Principle; and July 27, to finalize Agreement in Principle. 

Statements from the public will be taken if time permits. 

For more information, please contact Martha M. Kucera, Designated Federal Officer, Microbial and Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Advisory Committee, U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Mailcode 4607, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. The telephone number is 202-260-7773 or E-mail kucera.martha@epamail.epa.gov. 

Dated: May 1, 2000. 

Cynthia C. Dougherty, 

Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. 

[FR Doc. 00-11820 Filed 5-10-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATION 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 Intelligent Living Corp. (formerly Elgrande.com, Inc.) (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael F. Holloran, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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 result of operations of the Company.



DATED:  October 20, 2008

/s/ Michael F. Holloran

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

Michael F. Holloran;

Chief Executive Officer and

Principal Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Section 1350 Certification**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Citizens First Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) I, J. Steven Marcum, Executive Vice President, Finance and 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 the best of 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.

 

 
| By:    | /s/   J. Steven Marcum                                 |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | J.   Steven Marcum                                     |   |
|   | Executive   Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|   |                                                   |   |
| Date:  | May   6, 2011                                          |   |

 

 

This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and shall not be deemed ‘filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.

 

----
# EUR-Lex - 31999R2007 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999R2007

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 2007/1999 of 20 September 1999 fixing the minimum selling prices for beef put up for sale under the invitation to tender referred to in Regulation (EC) No 1899/1999 **

*
Official Journal L 248 , 21/09/1999 P. 0008 - 0009 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2007/1999

of 20 September 1999

fixing the minimum selling prices for beef put up for sale under the invitation to tender referred to in Regulation (EC) No 1899/1999

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1633/98(2), and in particular Article 7(3) thereof,

(1) Whereas tenders have been invited for certain quantities of beef fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1899/1999(3);

(2) Whereas, pursuant to Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2173/79(4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2417/95(5), the minimum selling prices for meat put up for sale by tender should be fixed, taking into account tenders submitted;

(3) Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Beef and Veal,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The minimum selling prices for beef for the invitation to tender held in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1899/1999 for which the time limit for the submission of tenders was 10 September 1999 are as set out in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 21 September 1999.

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

Done at Brussels, 20 September 1999.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 148, 28.6.1968, p. 24.

(2) OJ L 210, 28.7.1998, p. 17.

(3) OJ L 233, 3.9.1999, p. 19.

(4) OJ L 251, 5.10.1979, p. 12.

(5) OJ L 248, 14.10.1995, p. 39.

ANEXO/BILAG/ANHANG/ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ/ANNEX/ANNEXE/ALLEGATO/BIJLAGE/ANEXO/LIITE/BILAGA

>TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6494

GEORGE HAIGLER, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-3070-0-17BD) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 29, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Haigler, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: George Haigler, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and thedistrict court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny acertificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Haigler v. South Carolina , No. CA-97- 3070-0-17BD (D.S.C. Feb. 23, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### § 1902.50 Informal hearing.

Any informal hearing shall be legislative in type. The rules of procedure for each hearing shall be those contained in § 1902.40 and will be published with the notice thereof.
Exhibit 21


                            RYMER FOODS INC.

                       SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

                            OCTOBER 31, 1998




                                     State of    Percent
  Subsidiary Name                  Incorporation  Owned         Owner     

  Rymer Meat Inc.                     Illinois     100     Rymer Foods Inc.

  Rymer Chicken Inc. (1)              Arkansas     100     Rymer Meat Inc.

  Rymer International
   Seafood Inc. (2)                   Illinois     100     Rymer Meat Inc.

  Rymer Chicken Inc. - Plant City (3)  Florida     100     Rymer Meat Inc.

  Queen City Foods Inc.                Georgia     100     Rymer Meat Inc.



(1) Substantially all  of the  assets of  Rymer Chicken  Inc. were  sold on
    December  10,  1993.    See Item  1  and  Note  4 to  the  Consolidated
    Financial Statements.

(2) Substantially all of the  assets of Rymer  Seafood were sold  on August
    28,  1996.    See Item  1  and Note  4  to  the Consolidated  Financial
    Statements.

(3) Facility was sold in  1998.  See Note  4 to the  Consolidated Financial
    Statements.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
GEOCITIES ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          51,014                   3,785
<SECURITIES>                                    33,797                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,022                   1,304
<ALLOWANCES>                                       726                      98
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                90,560                  30,394
<PP&E>                                          11,379                   1,842
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,673                     626
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 130,382                  32,868
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,056                   3,943
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                  38,137
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            32                      49
<OTHER-SE>                                     116,967                (10,095)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   130,382                  32,868
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,359                   4,582
<CGS>                                            9,696                   3,789
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,735                   9,812
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 283                     121
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (19,758)                 (8,902)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         1                       1
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (19,759)                 (8,903)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (19,759)                 (8,903)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.71)                   (.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
#### § 1915.1047 Ethylene oxide.

Note:

The requirements applicable to shipyard employment under this section are identical to those set forth at [§ 1910.1047 of this chapter](/on/2024-09-19/title-29/section-1910.1047).

[[61 FR 31431](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/61-FR-31431), June 20, 1996]
#### Hazel HOPPER, Widow of J. P. Hopper *v.*THE RUST ENGINEERING COMPANY, et al

5-5729

474 S.W. 2d 414

Opinion delivered December 20, 1971

[Rehearing denied January 24, 1972.]

*John Norman Warnock*and *Lester Dole,*for appellant.

*Riddick Riffel,*for appellees.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

The issue on this appeal is whether the Workmen’s Compensation Commission erred in refusing to reopen the claim of Hazel Hopper, widow of J. P. Hopper, for death benefits.

The referee’s order, adopted by the Commission, shows that on August 8, 1966, J. P. Hopper while working for appellee, The Rust Engineering Company, got into an argument over a dice game. He resumed his work about noon but subsequently returned to the dice game where he and another employee got into a scuffle. He died within a few minutes thereafter. A claim for compensation benefits for appellant as the sole dependent was filed on October 12, 1966, by her then attorney Richard Earl Griffin. A hearing was held on that claim on June 23, 1967. At the request of claimant’s counsel the hearing was held open until additional evidence could be presented. March 29, 1968, Mr. John E. Cowne, Jr., Secretary of the Commission, wrote to claimant’s counsel, with a copy to claimant, that the claim would be dismissed within 30 days if no further action were taken. On May 1, 1968, the claim was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. July 8, 1969 the Commis*699sion received a letter from claimant’s present attorney that he desired to reopen the claim due to newly discovered evidence.

Claimant admitted that she received the copy of the Commission’s letter of March 29, 1968, but denied any knowledge of the May 1, 1968, order. Mr. Griffin testified that he had told her about the May 1, 1968, order before the file was turned over to present counsel. Other evidence in the record shows that decedent had had a prior heart condition.

To reverse the decision of the circuit court sustaining the Commission’s refusal to reopen the case, claimant relies upon *Dura Craft Boats, Inc.*v. *Daugherty,*247 Ark. 125, 444 S. W. 2d 562 (1969). There, however, it was not shown that claimant had notice of the order dismissing the claim. Here there is substantial evidence that claimant was made aware of the order of dismissal in apt time.

The petition to reopen was filed more than one year after the order of dismissal and more than two years after the death of the employee. Under Ark. Stat. Ann. § 81-1318 (b) (Repl. 1960) the claim was properly dismissed.

Affirmed.
§ 1918.52 Specific requirements. ( a ) *Preventers.* ( 1 ) When preventers are used they shall be of sufficient strength for the intended purpose. They shall be secured to the head of the boom independent of working guys unless, for cast fittings, the strength of the fitting exceeds the total strength of all lines secured to it. Any tails, fittings, or other means of making the preventers fast on the deck shall provide strength equal to that of the preventer itself.
( 2 ) Wire rope clips or knots shall not be used to form eyes in, nor to join sections of, preventer guys.
( b ) *Stoppers.* ( 1 ) Chain topping lift stoppers shall be in good condition, equipped with fiber tails, and long enough to allow not fewer than three half-hitches in the chain.
( 2 ) Chain stoppers shall be shackled or otherwise secured so that their links are not bent by being passed around fittings. The point of attachment shall be of sufficient strength and so placed that the stoppers are in line with the normal topping lift lead at the time the stopper is applied.
( 3 ) Patent stoppers of the clamp type shall be appropriate for the size of the rope used. Clamps shall be in good condition and free of any substance that would prevent their being drawn tight.
( c ) *Falls.* ( 1 ) The end of the winch fall shall be secured to the drum by clamps, U-bolts, shackles, or other equally strong methods. Fiber rope fastenings shall not be used.
( 2 ) Winch falls shall not be used with fewer than three turns on the winch drum.
( 3 ) Eyes in the ends of wire rope cargo falls shall not be formed by knots and, in single part falls, shall not be formed by wire rope clips.
( 4 ) When the design of the winch permits, the fall shall be wound on the drum so that the cargo hook rises when the winch control lever is pulled back and lowers when the lever is pushed forward.
( d ) *Heel blocks.* ( 1 ) When an employee works in the bight formed by the heel block, a preventer at least three-quarters of an inch (1.91 cm) in diameter wire rope shall be securely rigged, or equally effective means shall be taken, to hold the block and fall if the heel block attachments fail. Where physical limitations prohibit the fitting of a wire rope preventer of the required size, two turns of a one-half inch (1.27 cm) diameter wire rope shall be sufficient.
( 2 ) If the heel block is not so rigged as to prevent its falling when not under strain, it shall be secured to prevent alternate raising and dropping of the block. This requirement shall not apply when the heel block is at least 10 feet (3.05 m) above the deck when at its lowest point.
( e ) *Coaming rollers.* Portable coaming rollers shall be secured by wire preventers in addition to the regular coaming clamps.
( f ) *Cargo hooks.* Cargo hooks shall be as close to the junction of the falls as the assembly permits, but never farther than two feet (.61 m) from it. Exception: This provision shall not apply when the construction of the vessel and the operation in progress are such that fall angles are less than 120 degrees. Overhaul chains shall not be shortened by bolting or knotting.
[62 FR 40202, July 25, 1997, as amended at 65 FR 40944, June 30, 2000]
May 4, 2015

Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk

P.O. Box 12547 Austin, TX 78711 Court of Appeals Cause No. 03-15-00025-CV Trial Court Case No. D-1-GN-12-000983; Lakeway Regional Medical Center, et al v. Lake Travis Transitional, et al

Dear Mr. Kyle: I am requesting an additional two weeks to complete and file the Reporter’s Record. I am responsible for the sole care of my mother, who had surgery on brain to remove cancerous tumor. She relapsed and had bacterial infection with zero immune system and I have been providing 24-hour care for her. I am working feverishly to get my records filed. I will file the record by May 18, 2015.

Thank you,

/s/ LaSonya Thomas