alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

NZ SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBSIDIARY OF REGISTRANT               STATE OF INCORPORATION    DBA: NAMES
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                     <C>                      <C>
NZ Development Corporation                   Arizona             NZ Development Corporation
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NZ Properties, Inc.                          Arizona             NZ Properties, Inc., Brentwood
                                                                 Gardens Apartments, Apple Ridge
                                                                 Apartments, Montana Meadows
                                                                 Apartments, Wildwood Apartments
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NZU Inc.                                   New Mexico            NZU Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bridge Financial Corporation                 Arizona             Bridge Financial Corporation
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great Vacations International, Inc.          Arizona             Great Vacations International,
                                                                 Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>
Before the Third Division,

October 25, 1956

No. 60307.

protest 270938-K/14615 (New Orleans).

#### United China & Glass Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was orally stipulated that the merchandise, described as leaf bonbons, valued at $2.36 per dozen pieces, was not tableware; that duty was assessed on said merchandise inadvertently at 70 percent ad valorem and 10 cents per dozen pieces; and that, if the entry were now before the collector for review, he would return the leaf bonbons as claimed. In view of this stipulation, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
January 10, 1951

No. 55111.

#### American Leather Mfg. Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 147142-K, etc.

Plaintiffs’ application for rehearing granted.
July 8, 1948

No. 52457.

protest 124598-K.—

#### The East Asiatic Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing denied;
J

- S23011

- 15

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Sup erior Court. NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee

v. JEROME BOWMAN, Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 621 EDA 2014 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 14, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division at No. CP

- 51

- CR

- 0011386

- 2012 BEFORE: DONOHUE, SHOGAN, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ. CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED JUNE 01, 2015 I join the Majority Memorandum. I write separately to address Appellant’s challenge to the discretionary aspects of his se ntence and the confusing status of the law regarding such challenges. 1 As to Bowman’s challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence, the Majority cites Commonwealth v. Lewis , 911 A.2d 558, 567 (Pa. Super. 2006), for the proposition that allegatio ns that a sentencing court failed to consider mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question that a sentence was inappropriate. Majority Memorandum at 12. Indeed, Lewis supports such a proposition.

1 As Judge Bowes cogently observed in Commonwealth v. Dodge , 77 A.3d 1263, 1272 n.8 (Pa. Super. 2013), “it is apparent that this Court’s determination of whether an appellant has presented a substantial question in various cases has been l ess than a model of clarity and consistency[.]”J

- S23011

- 15

- 2

-

However, this Court also has stated, “[i]t i s well

- established that a sentencing court’s failure to consider mitigating factors raises a substantial question.” Commonwealth v. Raven , 97 A.3d 1244, 1253 (Pa. Super. 2014). Moreover, this Court recently has reiterated several times “that an
excessive sentence claim

— in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors

— raises a substantial question.” Commonwealth v. Raven , 97 A.3d 1244, 1253 (Pa. Super. 2014) (emphasis added; citation omitted) (citing Commonwealth v. Pe rry , 883 A.2d 599, 602 (Pa. Super. 2005)); Commonwealth v. Samuel , 102 A.3d 1001, 1007 (Pa. Super. 2014); Commonwealth v. Gonzalez , 109 A.3d 711, 731 (Pa. Super. 2015). Here, I agree with the Majority that Appellant is arguing that his
sentence is exces sive and that the trial court failed to consider mitigating factors. Based upon this Court’s recent decisions, I believe that Appellant has raised a substantial question worthy of appellate review. However, because the Majority properly vacates Appellant ’s judgment of sentence due to its illegal nature and remands for resentencing, any challenge to the discretionary aspects of Appellant’s sentence is moot.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM WORLDTEX,
INC.  FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED  SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                     DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                          SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                      7,946
<SECURITIES>                                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              42,731
<ALLOWANCES>                                                6,844
<INVENTORY>                                                52,227
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          101,566
<PP&E>                                                    157,577
<DEPRECIATION>                                             56,128
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            290,355
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      43,345
<BONDS>                                                   198,840
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                           0
<PREFERRED>                                                     0
<COMMON>                                                      147
<OTHER-SE>                                                 35,638
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              290,355
<SALES>                                                   197,882
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          197,882
<CGS>                                                     167,860
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             167,860
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              449
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         15,808
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            (7,961)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  899
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        (8,680)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               564
<CHANGES>                                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                               (9,424)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                  (.66)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                (.66)



</TABLE>
Exhibit 32





CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Human Pheromone Sciences, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, William P. Horgan and Gregory S. Fredrick certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(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.







/s/ William P. Horgan

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)

May 14, 2009



/s/ Gregory S. Fredrick

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

May 14, 2009





This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Human Pheromone Sciences, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.





22
Under Construction Nuclear Calculation (See NEEDSv.5.13 for capacity and online year source)

State Plant Capacity (MW) Generation (MWh)

GA Vogtle 2200 17,344,800

SC Summer 2200 17,344,800

TN Watts Bar 1122 8,845,848

Generation values are used as the "under construction" nuclear generation values in the state goal calculation for these three 

These values are added to the "at risk" generation identified in Table 4.10 of the GHG Abatement Measures TSD. The sum of 

Step 4a of the Appendix 1 and 2 in the Goal Computations TSD where it is factored in the state goal calculation.
oal calculation for these three states.

t Measures TSD. The sum of the two values is shown in 

oal calculation.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Chris E. Perkins, the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Per-Se Technologies, Inc. (the "Company"), in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
hereby certify that the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30, 2003, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission: (i)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) the information contained in such Quarterly
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

                                                By: /s/ CHRIS E. PERKINS
                                                    --------------------
                                                    Chris E. Perkins
                                                    Executive Vice President
                                                    and Chief Financial Officer

Date: August 8, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Per-Se Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Per-Se
Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Electronic Tariff Filings Docket No. RM01-5-000

NOTICE OF DATE FOR SUBMISSION OF

TRANSITIONAL SCHEDULES

(December 1, 2009)

Take notice that the submission of proposed transitional schedules for making

baseline electronic tariff filings should be made by January 22, 2010.

In Order No. 714,

1 the Commission adopted regulations requiring that tariff and

tariff related filings must be made electronically. The Commission provided that the

conversion to electronic tariff filings would begin April 1, 2010, with pipelines and

utilities filing baseline tariffs according to a six-month staggered filing schedule worked

out between staff and industry. Standard notice and comment periods will apply to these

baseline filings. Once an oil or gas pipeline or electric utility has made its baseline filing,

all subsequent tariff-related filings must be made electronically.

At the Commission staff technical conference held on November 20, 2009, staff

indicated that, from its perspective, a filing schedule would be acceptable as long as the

baseline filings are reasonably dispersed throughout the six month period. Having to

process many baseline applications at the same time would slow Commission processing

time and would work to the disadvantage of both the companies and the Commission.

Customers in comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding and at

the conference expressed concern that filings be staggered reasonably so that customers

would not have to review a large number of baseline filings at the same time. Interest

was expressed at the conference in providing the various industries an opportunity to

meet with their customer groups to develop a staggered schedule that would balance the

baseline filings longitudinally and perhaps geographically.

Commission staff will honor a consensus agreement so long as the filings are

generally spread over the six-month transition period. Commission staff will issue a

Notice of the filing schedule after reviewing the comments received.

1 Electronic Tariff Filings, Order No. 714, 73 FR 57,515 (Oct. 3, 2008), 124 FERC

¶ 61,270, FERC Stats. & Regs [Regulations Preambles] ¶ 31,276 (2008) (Sept. 19, 2008).

20091201-3032 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/01/2009
Docket No. RM01-5-000 2

For more information, contact Andre Goodson, Office of the General Counsel, at

202-502-8560 or Keith Pierce, Office of Energy Market Regulation at 202 502-8525 or

by sending an email to ETariff@ferc.gov.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

20091201-3032 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/01/2009
Document Content(s)

RM01-5-000.DOC........................................................1-2

20091201-3032 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/01/2009
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.                  

###### Surface Transportation Board

The Surface Transportation Board has received a request from Andrew Sweeting and Louis Preonas of University of Maryland (WB23-57—10/26/23) for permission to use data from the Board's annual 1984-2021 unmasked Carload Waybill Sample. A copy of this request may be obtained from the Board's website under docket no. WB23-57.

The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; therefore, if any parties object to these requests, they should file their objections with the Director of the Board's Office of Economics within 14 calendar days of the date of this notice. The rules for release of waybill data are codified at 49 CFR 1244.9.

*Contact:*                     Alexander Dusenberry, (202) 245-0319.                

Regena Smith-Bernard,

Clearance Clerk.

[FR Doc. 2023-24339 Filed 11-2-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Standard Pacific Corp., a Delaware corporation (the Company), for purposes of 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |  |  | the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Dated: May 7, 2007



|                                      
|--------------------------------------
|/s/ Stephen J. Scarborough            
|Stephen J. Scarborough                
|Chairman of the Board of Directors and
|Chief Executive Officer               
|                                      
|/s/ Andrew H. Parnes                  
|Andrew H. Parnes                      
|Executive Vice President  Finance and
|Chief Financial Officer
No. 75-7010.

#### Neal *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 51864.

#### Manne & Weill et al. *v.*United States,

protests 691504-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim at 50 percent ad valorem under paragraph 915, plus any additional duty applicable under paragraph 924, was therefore sustained.
August 19, 1946

No. 51271.

Suit 4521.

#### Florea *& Co., Inc.*v. *United States.*

Reap. Dec. 6190 reversed and remanded June 11, 1946. C. A. D. 339.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Edward F. Brennan, Ph.D., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of CryoCor, Inc.;

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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants 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 registrant 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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this 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 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(s) 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 control 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: March 23, 2006



/s/    EDWARD F. BRENNAN,
PH.D.Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
##### 



Exhibit 99.3
 Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm on Compliance
 
 Report of
Management on Compliance Report of Management on Compliance
   /s/ Ernst & Young LLPDes Moines, IowaMarch 13, 2006




---



##### 



Report of Management on Compliance
  /s/ Ellen Z. Lamale




---



##### 



Exhibit A
Specified Standards
 I. Funding Agreement Payments
  1.
    
    calculated according to the terms of the Funding Agreement; and2.
    
    promptly paid, within two business days of the due date, to the Indenture
Trustee at the direction of the appropriate Principal Life Income Fundings Trust.
 II. Guarantee Payments in Support of the Payment of Amounts Due on the Funding Agreement
  1.
    
    calculated according to the terms of the Funding Agreement; and2.
    
    promptly paid, within two business days of the due date, to the Indenture
Trustee at the direction of the appropriate Principal Life Income Fundings Trust.
 III. Payments Under Indenture
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-20038 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MICHAEL RATHBURN, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CA-95-4578

- - - - - - - - - - February 21, 1997 Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * In this appeal from the district court’s order denying his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Michael Rathburn contends that his criminal conviction violated double jeopardy because it was preceded by a civil forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881 (a)(7). A recent opinion by the United States Supreme Court has rendered this issue frivolous. United States v. Ursery , 116 S. Ct. 2135, 2147-49 (1996).No. 96-20038 - 2 - Rathburn argues for the first time on appeal that the civil forfeiture violated the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. Even assuming that this claim properly was raised in the district court, it is not cognizable in this § 2255 proceeding. See United States v. Segler , 37 F.3d 1131, 1136-37 (5th Cir. 1994). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. To the extent that a certificate of appealability (COA) is required, we construe Rathburn’s notice of appeal as an application for COA and DENY the motion.
APPEAL DISMISSED.