alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                       92



                                                                    EXHIBIT (21)


                             AEROQUIP-VICKERS, INC.
                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


The assets and business of all subsidiaries listed below are included in the
1997 consolidated financial statements of the Registrant. In addition to those
named, 8 U.S. and 22 non-U.S. consolidated subsidiaries and 4 affiliated
companies that are accounted for by the cost and/or equity methods are not
disclosed. The undisclosed subsidiaries and affiliated companies in the
aggregate do not constitute a significant subsidiary.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                             Incorporated or                  Percent of
                                               Organized -                 Voting Securities
            Company                         State or Country                     Owned
----------------------------------         ------------------              -----------------

<S>                                            <C>                                <C>
Aeroquip-Vickers, Inc.                         Ohio                            Registrant

SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT
Aeroquip Corporation                           Michigan                           100
Aeroquip International Inc.                    Delaware                           100
Vickers, Incorporated                          Delaware                           100
Vickers International Inc.                     Delaware                           100

Aeroquip A.G.                                  Switzerland                        100
Aeroquip do Brasil, S.A.                       Brazil                             99.5
Aeroquip Iberica S.A.                          Spain                              100
Aeroquip Inoac Company                         Michigan                            51
Aeroquip-Vickers International GmbH            Germany                            100

Aeroquip Ltd.                                  Barbados                           100
Aeroquip-Vickers Export Trading Company        Virgin Islands                     100
Aeroquip-Vickers Inc.                          Canada                             100
Aeroquip-Vickers Limited                       United Kingdom                     100
Aeroquip-Vickers Pte. Ltd.                     Singapore                          100

Aeroquip-Vickers Pty. Ltd.                     Australia                          100
Aeroquip-Vickers S.A.                          France                             100
Aeroquip-Vickers Sdn. Bhd.                     Malaysia                           100
Aeroquip-Vickers S.p.A.                        Italy                              100
Vickers do Brasil Ltda.                        Brazil                             100

Vickers Systems Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd.         Singapore                          100
Vickers Systems International Ltd.             India                               51
Vickers Systems Limited                        Hong Kong                          100
</TABLE>
§ 553.210 Fire protection activities. ( a ) As used in sections 7(k) and 13(b)(20) of the Act, the term “any employee * * * in fire protection activities” refers to “an employee, including a firefighter, paramedic, emergency medical technician, rescue worker, ambulance personnel, or hazardous materials worker, who— ( 1 ) is trained in fire suppression, has the legal authority and responsibility to engage in fire suppression, and is employed by a fire department of a municipality, county, fire district, or State; and
( 2 ) is engaged in the prevention, control, and extinguishment of fires or response to emergency situations where life, property, or the environment is at risk.”
( b ) Not included in the term “employee in fire protection activities” are the so-called “civilian” employees of a fire department, fire district, or forestry service who engage in such support activities as those performed by dispatchers, alarm operators, apparatus and equipment repair and maintenance workers, camp cooks, clerks, stenographers, etc.
[52 FR 2032, Jan. 16, 1987; 52 FR 2648, Jan. 23, 1987, as amended at 76 FR 18856, Apr. 5, 2011]
Gerard



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

July 20, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 0 0301

- CV

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO

, Appellant

v.

Gerard CORTES

, Appellee

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014

- CI

- 05707

Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Appellee Gerard Cortes’s M otion for R ehearing is DENIED.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 20th day of July, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

WANDA BROOKS

v.

EWING COLE, INC., D/B/A EWING COLE 

AND CITY OF PHILADELPHIA AND 

FAMILY COURT OF THE COURT OF 

COMMON PLEAS OF THE FIRST 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

PETITION OF: FAMILY COURT OF THE 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 267 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth 

Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of January, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

GRANTED. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:

(1) Should this Court review the Commonwealth Court’s conclusion that 

an order denying a summary judgment motion based on sovereign 

immunity does not satisfy the collateral order doctrine of 

Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure 313, which conflicts with 

statutory law and case law that this immunity is “immunity from suit” 

and presents a matter of first impression for this Court on a 

substantial legal and policy issue involving absolute immunities?

The Joint Application to File Amicus Curiae Brief is DENIED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE to 

the applicants’ ability to participate as amici curiae during merits briefing of the appeal. 

Justice Dougherty did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
EXHIBIT 99(B)



Statement of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code



Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned, Arthur Hicks, the Chief Financial Officer of Cybex International, Inc.
(the Company), hereby certifies that:



The Companys Form 10-K Annual Report for the period ended December 31, 2002 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



Dated: April 15, 2003

/s/ Arthur HicksArthur Hicks,Chief Financial Officer




A SIGNED ORIGINAL
OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO CYBEX INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY CYBEX INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND WILL BE FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 105 (Wednesday, May 31, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 34688]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13491]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-290-000]


Nautilus Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

May 23, 2000.
    Take notice that on May 19, 2000, Nautilus Pipeline Company, L.L.C. 
(Nautilus) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original 
Volume No. 1, revised tariff sheets listed in Appendix A to the filing, 
to be effective July 1, 2000.
    Nautilus states that the purpose of this filing is to revise 
Nautilus' Original Volume No. 1 FERC Gas Tariff to remove the maximum 
price cap or short-term capacity release transactions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-13491 Filed 5-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
§ 503.25 Failure to cooperate with investigators. ( a ) No person will interfere or refuse to cooperate with any employee of the Secretary who is exercising or attempting to exercise the Department's investigative or enforcement authority under 8 U.S.C. 1184(c). Federal statutes prohibiting persons from interfering with a Federal officer in the course of official duties are found at 18 U.S.C. 111 and 18 U.S.C. 114.
( b ) Where an employer (or employer's agent or attorney) interferes or does not cooperate with an investigation concerning the employment of an H-2B worker or a worker in corresponding employment, or a U.S. worker who has been improperly rejected for employment or improperly laid off or displaced, WHD may make such information available to OFLC and may recommend that OFLC revoke the existing certification that is the basis for the employment of the H-2B workers giving rise to the investigation. In addition, WHD may take such action as appropriate where the failure to cooperate meets the standards in § 503.19, including initiating proceedings for the debarment of the employer from future certification for up to 5 years, and/or assessing civil money penalties against any person who has failed to cooperate with a WHD investigation. The taking of any one action will not bar the taking of any additional action.
#### § 453.4 Trusts (in which a labor organization is interested) within the coverage of section 502(a).

Section 3(l) of the Act defines a *trust in which a labor organization is interested* as:

- * * a trust or other fund or organization (1) which was created or established by a labor organization, or one or more of the trustees or one or more members of the governing body of which is selected or appointed by a labor organization, and (2) a primary purpose of which is to provide benefits for the members of such labor organization or their beneficiaries.

Both the language and the legislative history[4] make it clear that this definition covers pension funds, health and welfare funds, profit sharing funds, vacation funds, apprenticeship and training funds, and funds or trusts of a similar nature which exist for the purpose of, or have as a primary purpose, the providing of the benefits specified in the definition. This is so regardless of whether these trusts, funds, or organizations are administered solely by labor organizations, or jointly by labor organizations and employers, or by a corporate trustee, unless they were neither created or established by a labor organization nor have any trustee or member of the governing body who was selected or appointed by a labor organization.

###### Footnotes -
  453.4

[4] Daily Cong. Rec., pp. 5858-59, Senate, April 23, 1959.
### Quality of surface waters of the United States, 1956. Parts 5 and 6, Hudson Bay and upper Mississippi River basins and Missouri River Basin

By: Water Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1451

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
### Geology and ground-water resources of the Matanuska Valley agricultural area, Alaska

By: Frank W. Trainer

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1494

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf) 
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**
- Superseded Publications:
                                        Tables of well records in the Palmer-Wasilla region of the Matanuska Valley, Alaska(1950)                                    

                                        Geology and ground-water resources of the Matanuska Valley agricultural area, Alaska(1954)                                    

                                        Surficial geology of an area adjoining the edge of the Matanuska Valley, Alaska(1955)                                    

                                        Results of specific-gravity test of a well at Alaska Agricultural Experiment Station, Matanuska, Alaska, September 1955(1956)                                    

- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
[No. 25383-6-II.

Division Two.

January 3, 2003.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Gerald Dewayne Davis, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 97-1-00479-1, Marywave Van Deren, J., entered December 7, 1999. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Houghton, J., concurred in by Morgan and Bridgewater, JJ.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 158 (Tuesday, August 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 50733]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20765]

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

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Determination of Insufficient Assets To Satisfy Claims Against 
Financial Institution in Receivership

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FDIC has determined that insufficient assets exist in the 
receivership of R-G Premier Bank of Puerto Rico, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico, 
to make any distribution to general unsecured claims, and therefore 
such claims will recover nothing and have no value.

DATES: The FDIC made its determination on August 2, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions regarding this 
notice, you may contact an FDIC Claims Agent at (904) 256-3925. Written 
correspondence may also be mailed to FDIC as Receiver of R-G Premier 
Bank of Puerto Rico, Attention: Claims Agent, 7777 Baymeadows Way West, 
Jacksonville, Florida 32256.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 30, 2010, R-G Premier Bank of 
Puerto Rico, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico, (FIN 10230) was closed by 
the Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions of the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (``OCFI''), and the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation (``FDIC'') was appointed as its receiver 
(``Receiver''). In complying with its statutory duty to resolve the 
institution in the method that is least costly to the deposit insurance 
fund, see 12 U.S.C. 1823(c)(4), the FDIC facilitated a transaction with 
Scotiabank de Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico, to acquire the 
deposits and most of the assets of the failed institution.
    Section 11(d)(11)(A) of the FDI Act, 12 U.S.C. 1821(d)(11)(A), sets 
forth the order of priority for distribution of amounts realized from 
the liquidation or other resolution of an insured depository 
institution to pay claims. Under the statutory order of priority, 
administrative expenses and deposit liabilities must be paid in full 
before any distribution may be made to general unsecured creditors or 
any lower priority claims.
    As of May 31, 2011, the value of assets available for distribution 
by the Receiver, together with maximum possible recoveries on claims 
against directors, officers, and other professionals, and claims in 
bankruptcy was $3,321,421,322. As of the same date, administrative 
expenses and depositor liabilities equaled $4,671,704,953, exceeding 
available assets and potential recoveries by $1,350,283,631. 
Accordingly, the FDIC has determined that insufficient assets exist to 
make any distribution on general unsecured creditor claims (and any 
lower priority claims) and therefore all such claims, asserted or 
unasserted, will recover nothing and have no value.

    Dated: August 11, 2011.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-20765 Filed 8-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
```
#### § 453.25 Effective date of the bonding requirement.

While the bonding provision in section 502(a) became effective on September 14, 1959, its requirement for obtaining bonds does not become applicable to a labor organization or a trust in which a labor organization is interested, or to the personnel of any such organization, until the subsequent date when such organization's next fiscal year begins. This is so because the Act requires each such bond to be fixed at the beginning of the organization's fiscal year in an amount based on funds handled in the preceding fiscal year, and it could not well have been intended that the obtaining of a bond would be necessary in advance of the time when it would be possible to meet this requirement.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT JAMES DEMETRIOU,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 12-56657

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-05522-JFWVBK

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted: December 9, 2015** 

Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. 

Robert James Demetriou appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

judgment in his diversity action arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Kaplan v. City of N. Las

Vegas, 323 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm. 

FILED

DEC 16 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

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

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The district court properly granted summary judgment because JP Morgan

Chase Bank, N.A. had statutory authority to initiate nonjudicial foreclosure

proceedings. See Cal. Civ. Code § 2924(a)(1) (a “trustee, mortgagee, or

beneficiary, or any of their authorized agents” may initiate the foreclosure

process); see also Jenkins v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 156 Cal. Rptr. 3d 912,

928 (Ct. App. 2013) (holding that a loan servicer, as agent for the beneficiary, may

record a notice of default and initiate nonjudicial foreclosure); Gomes v.

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 121 Cal. Rptr. 3d 819, 824 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)

(California law does not “provide for a judicial action to determine whether the

person initiating the foreclosure process is indeed authorized” absent “a specific

factual basis for alleging that the foreclosure was not initiated by the correct

party”). 

We do not consider Demetriou’s judicial estoppel argument because it was

raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2

(9th Cir. 2009).

Appellee’s uncontested request for judicial notice, filed on June 13, 2013, is

granted.

AFFIRMED.

2 12-56657