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


                                                                INCORPORATED
SUBSIDIARIES                                                    JURISDICTION

Celadon E-Commerce, Inc.                                             DE

Celadon Logistics, Inc.                                              DE

Celadon Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.                                     Mexico

Celadon Transportation, L.L.P.                                       IN

Celadon Trucking Services, Inc. d/b/a Zipp Logistics                 NJ

Celadon Trucking Services of Indiana, Inc.                           IN

Celadon Canada, Inc.                                          Ontario, Canada

International Freight Holding Corporation                            DE

Randy Express, Inc.                                                  NY

RIL Acquisition Corp.                                                DE

Servicios de Transportacion Jaguar, S.A de C.V.                    Mexico

TruckersB2B, Inc.                                                    DE

Zipp Realty LLC                                                      IN
24

23

23

24 

24

23

12 11

10 1/2

10 1/2

11

10

11 10

0 1 2 3 5 6

' 124°05' 124°

750

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

2000

2000

2000

1000

2000

2000

2000

1000

1000

1000

1000

2000

2000

2000

2000

1000

1000

Lower Salmon River

North Fork

Middle Fork

South Fork

Salmon

River

South

Fo

rk

Saml on

River

Middle

Fork

S almon River

North

Fork

Salmon

River

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

500

250

250

250

750

750

750

750

750

750

750

750

750

1250

1250

1250

1500

1500

1250

750

750

1500

1500

1500

1250

1250

1250

1750

1750

1750

1750

750

750

1750

1750

1750

2250

2250

2500

2500

750

750

1250

1250

1250

1500

1500

1500

1250

1500

1500

2500

2500

2500

2250

2250

2250

2250

750

1250

1250

1250

1250

1500

1500

1750

1750

1500

1500 1500

1500

1500

1750

3

5 6 KILOMETERS

4 MILES

atershed, delineated by the Washington Department of Natural Resources.
No. 11-6192.

#### Gomes *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
## In T he Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 22 - 00177 - CV IN RE WALTER LYNN JOHNSTON, RELATOR

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

### June 28 , 2022 ORDER ON MOTION FOR EMERGENCY STAY Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. Relator, Walter Lynn Johnston, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus or, in the alternative, writ of habeas corpus seeking an order declaring that the Honorable Leslie Hatch’s contempt judgment is void. Contemporaneous to the filing of his petition, J ohnston has filed an emergency motion to stay proceedings pending review of his petition. An appellate court, pursuant to Rule 52.10(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, may grant “any just relief” pending the disposition of an original petitio n without notice. T EX . R. A PP . P . 52.10(b). Just relief may include staying the enforcement of an order for purposes of protecting the jurisdiction of the appellate court by maintaining2

the status quo of the underlying proceeding while the c ourt consider s the merits of the original proceeding. In re Kelleher , 999 S.W.2d 51, 52 (Tex. App. — Amarillo 1999, orig. proceeding) (Rule 52.10 exists to afford court opportunity to address dispute encompassed within petition for mandamus by maintaining status quo unt il it can address that dispute); In re Reed , 901 S.W.2d 604, 609 (Tex. App. — San Antonio 1995, orig. proceeding) (holding under predecessor to Rule 52.10 that appellate court’s temporary order “is not a writ of prohibition against holding the trial; it is a stay order issued ancillary to the mandamus proceeding and for the purpose of protecting our jurisdiction so that we could consider the merits of that mandamus action.”). To afford sufficient time for this Court to review the merits of relator’s petition , by order of the Court, r elator’s motion for an emergency stay is granted. Any further proceedings related to the trial court’s order for judgment of contempt for violations of temporary support obligations in cause number 2019 - 534,357 ar e stayed until f urther order of this Court. Per Curiam
EXHIBIT
32.2





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 NetFabric Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Vasan Thatham,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to 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.





August
      13 , 2010
              By:
              /s/ Vasan
      ThathamName:
      Vasan ThathamTitle:
      Chief Financial Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
NetFabric Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by NetFabric Holdings, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-0804 Directorate Identifier: 2012-NM-094-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Group 1,2,3 -

Replacement of the

FWD, AFT, and

Nose Cargo Door

Switches

4.2 $ 357.00 $195 $ 552.00 216 $119,232.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance: 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $119,232

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
[Cite as McCroskey v. Grafton Corr. Inst., 2011-Ohio-7026.]

Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us

DENNIS MCCROSKEY 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

GRAFTON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 

 Defendant

Case No. 2011-09896-AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

FINDINGS OF FACT 

{¶ 1} On November 3, 2009, plaintiff, Dennis McCroskey, an inmate 

incarcerated at defendant, Grafton Correctional Institution (“GCI”), was transferred out 

of state for an extended period of time. 

{¶ 2} Plaintiff’s personal property was inventoried, packed, and delivered into 

the custody of GCI staff incident to his transfer. Plaintiff recalled that when he returned 

on May 10, 2011, none of his property could be located. 

{¶ 3} Plaintiff asserted his property was lost or destroyed as a proximate result 

of negligence on the part of GCI personnel and he has consequently filed this complaint 

seeking damages in the amount of $2,500.00. Payment of the filing fee was waived. 

{¶ 4} Plaintiff submitted a copy of his “Notification of Grievance” form wherein 

plaintiff concluded, “I expect to be fully compensated-property value $1800 to $2000.” 

{¶ 5} In the investigation report defendant noted that “[d]efendant’s agents were 

negligent in causing [plaintiff’s] loss” and “[d]efendant admits damages in the amount of 

$2020.” 
{¶ 6} 6) Plaintiff did not file a response. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

{¶ 7} Negligence on the part of defendant has been shown in respect to the 

issue of protecting plaintiff’s property after he was transferred. Billups v. Department of 

Rehabilitation and Correction (2001), 2000-10634-AD, jud. 

{¶ 8} Defendant is liable to plaintiff in the total amount of $2,020.00. 
Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us 

DENNIS MCCROSKEY 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

GRAFTON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 

 Defendant

Case No. 2011-09896-AD 

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert 

ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION

 Having considered all the evidence in the claim file and, for the reasons set forth 

in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered in favor 

of plaintiff in the amount of $2,020.00. Court costs are assessed against defendant. 

 

 DANIEL R. BORCHERT 

 Deputy Clerk 

Entry cc: 

Dennis McCroskey, #321-264 Gregory C. Trout, Chief Counsel 

2500 S. Avon Belden Road Department of Rehabilitation 

Grafton, Ohio 44044 and Correction 

 770 West Broad Street 

 Columbus, Ohio 43222 

10/17 

Filed 10/25/11 

Sent to S.C. reporter 3/13/12
§ 80.875 VHF radiotelephone power supply. ( a ) There must be readily available for use under normal load conditions a power supply sufficient to simultaneously energize the VHF transmitter at its required antenna power, and the VHF receiver. Under this load condition the voltage of the source of energy at the power input terminals of the VHF radiotelephone installation must not deviate from its rated value by more than 10 percent on ships completed on or after March 1, 1957, nor by more than 15 percent on ships completed before that date.
( b ) When the power supply for the VHF radiotelephone installation consists of batteries, they must be installed in the upper part of the ship, secured against shifting with motion of the ship, capable of operating the installation for 6 hours, and accessible with not less than 26 cm (10 in.) head room.
( c ) Means must be provided for charging any rechargeable batteries used in the ship's VHF radiotelephone installation. There must be provided a device which, during charging of the batteries, will give a continuous indication of the charging current.
( d ) The VHF radiotelephone installation may be connected to the reserve power supply of a compulsorily fitted radiotelephone or radiotelegraph installation.
[51 FR 31213, Sept. 2, 1986, as amended at 58 FR 44953, Aug. 25, 1993]
#### § 95.2749 MURS network connection.

MURS stations are prohibited from interconnection with the public switched network. *Interconnection Defined.* Connection through automatic or manual means of multi-use radio stations with the facilities of the public switched telephone network to permit the transmission of messages or signals between points in the wireline or radio network of a public telephone company and persons served by multi-use radio stations. Wireline or radio circuits or links furnished by common carriers, which are used by licensees or other authorized persons for transmitter control (including dial-up transmitter control circuits) or as an integral part of an authorized, private, internal system of communication or as an integral part of dispatch point circuits in a multi-use radio station are not considered to be interconnection for purposes of this rule part.
Your session is about to expire.Resume session

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Welcome.Log inorregisterCOPS OFFICE RESOURCE CENTER

HomeCatalogCartOrders

                    

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                CatalogMatches: 1Offline form Recent Popular Online Print OtherCOPS-W0952Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement: Report on the State of the Field and Effective Oversight PracticesThe wave of high-profile incidents in 2020 between police and community members has prompted widespread calls for greater community oversight of law enforcement agencies. This white paper - Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement: Report on the State of the Field and Effective Oversight Practices, by the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) - combines survey data, case studies of oversight bodies nationwide, and a literature review to outline the history of civilian oversight and its spread; define three standard oversight models and discuss their implementation; propose 13 principles for effective oversight; and provide recommendations for each within an effective practices framework.By Michael Vitoroulis, Cameron McEllhiney, Liana PerezCategories: Data and AnalysisLanguage: EnglishPublic linkhttps://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter?item=cops-w0952Click here to see the entire catalog.Cart:Download PDFWeb • Jul 2021Search catalogreset title abstract authors contentContaining text: exact phraseNot containing text: exact phraseLanguage:anyEnglishSpanishHmongVietnameseCategory:anyAlternatives to IncarcerationCommunity PartnershipsData and AnalysisEthics and IntegrityFoundations of Community PolicingHiring, Recruitment, and RetentionHomeland SecurityNew Immigrant CommunitiesNonviolent CrimeOtherPolice OperationsPOP Center ResourceSchool and Campus SafetyTechnologyTribalViolent CrimeYouth SafetyPublished after:Published before:Page1

                    

FOIA | No FEAR Act | Open Government | Privacy | Legal|HelpCopyright (C) U.S. Department of Justice, COPS Office, IT Division, 2012 - 2024. All rights reserved.
Rendered on Mon Mar 4 2024 at 01:57 (UTC-5) in 0.95 secEnterprise Framework 3.21.7.7 • Store Controls 3.3.1.7Survey 500303407 Section 60000560 Rules Hints Inactive
#### COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. FARMERS & MERCHANTS SAVINGS BANK.

No. 14275.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Feb. 1, 1951.

Theron Lamar Caudle, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ellis N. Slack, Special Asst, to Atty. Gen., Charles Oliphant, Chief Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and Claude R. Marshall, Special Attorney, Bureau of Internal Revenue, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Don K. Walter, Burlington, Iowa, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Decision of Tax Court reversed and cause remanded to said Tax Court for such proceedings as are necessary in conformity with decision in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Ames Trust & Savings Bank, 8 Cir., 185 F.2d 47, on stipulation of parties.
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            College of Information and Cyberspace
                    National Defense University
                CIC
        Search
                    Search CIC:
                        Search
                Search CIC:
                    Search
    Home

    About 
        Mission & Vision

    Faculty & Staff

    Fact Sheet

    Alumni

    Internships

    FAQ

    Admissions 
        Eligibility Requirements

    Admissions Calendar

    Application Instructions

    Apply Online

    International Students

    Academics 
        Graduate Catalog

    M.S. in Strategic Information and Cyberspace Studies
        
        JPME Master's Degree

    Cyber Workforce Master's Degree (Part Time)

    Leadership Development Programs

    Graduate Certificates

    Academic Partners

    Current Students 
        JPME II  Incoming Students

    LDP Incoming Students

    Student Registration

    Bring Your Own Device

    IA Compliance

    Completion Procedures / Order Transcripts

    Student Services and Resources

    Events
    
        Cyber Beacon

    Cyber PME Colloquium

    Hopper Award

    Lecture Series

    CYBERCOM Symposium

    NEWS

    UC2
    
        About

    Events

    Work With Us

    Center for Cybersecurity
    
        About

    Cybersecurity Center POC

    Cybersecurity Supporting Faculty

    CAE-CDE CISO Certificate Program

    Cybersecurity Trending News

    Cyber Labs
        
        Ethical Hacking

    Critical Infrastructure - SCADA

    Cyber Exercises
        
        Tabletop Exercise

    Cyber Competitions

    Cyber Resources and Awareness

    Stakeholder / Industry Advisory Council

    Contact 
        Contact Us

    Directions

    Access to Ft. McNair

    Map of Ft. McNair  Home
  NEWS
  News & Announcements
 News & Announcements News
 CIC Professors Participate in  OPM Cybersecurity Orientation
 here
 SHARE
 PRINT
 National Defense University


College of Information and Cyberspace

300 Fifth Ave., Bldg. 62
Fort Lesley J. McNair
Washington, DC 20319-5066

202-685-6300
                    Stay Connected
                
                
                DOD Privacy & Security
 DOD Links Disclaimer
 DOD Social Media Policy
 DOD Web Policy
 FOIA
 NDU System of Records Notice
 NDU Privacy & Security Notice
 No FEAR Act
 Open GOV
 Plain Writing Act
 Section 508
 Small Business Act
 USA.gov
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 24, 2014

h0917 

# Order

Clerk September 24, 2014

148841

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148841

COA: 319352

Emmet CC: 12

- 003758

- FH

WALTER JEROME DEMARAY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 16, 2014

order of the Court of Appeals is considered. We DIRECT the Emmet County

Prosecuting Attorney to answer the application for leave to appeal within 28 days after

the date of this order. The prosecutor shall pay particular attention to the defendant’s

arguments that his double jeopardy protections were violated and that the trial court erred

in ordering the defendant to pay $50.00 to t he “Victims Restitution Fund.”

The application for leave to appeal remains pending.
§ 87.473 Supplemental eligibility. ( a ) Licenses for radionavigation land test stations (MTF) will be granted only to applicants engaged in the development, manufacture or maintenance of aircraft radionavigation equipment. Licenses for radionavigation land test stations (OTF) will be granted only to applicants who agree to establish the facility at an airport for the use of the public.
( b ) Licenses for ELT test stations will be granted only to applicants to train personnel in the operation and location of ELTs, or for testing related to the manufacture or design of ELTs.
[53 FR 28940, Aug. 1, 1988, as amended at 63 FR 68958, Dec. 14, 1998]
EXHIBIT 31.2



CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION



I, Kevin Arave, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Source Direct Holdings, Inc.



2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer 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 registrant and we 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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants 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



c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants 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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                        |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: November 14, 2007 |  | /s/ Kevin Arave                      
|                        |  | Kevin Arave                          
|                        |  | Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer