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

***Jostens, Inc.subsidiaries as of March 31, 2004***
| **Name of Company**                                       | ** ** | ** **      | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of Incorporation** | ** ** | ** ** |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|-----------------|------------|---------------------------------------------|------------|------------|
|                                                                |       |            |
| Jostens Canada Ltd.                                       |       | Canada          |
| Jostens Can Investments B.V.                         |       | The Netherlands |
| Jostens International Holding B.V.                   |       | The Netherlands |
| C.V. Jostens Global Trading                          |       | The Netherlands |
| JC Trading, Inc.                                          |       | Puerto Rico     |
| Conceptos Jostens,                                        |       | Mexico          |
| JostFer, S.A. de  C.V.                                              |       | Mexico          |
| Reconocimientos E Incentivos, S.A. de C.V. |       | Mexico          |

 

78

----
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 99(i)

                                Certification of
                    Randall K. Davis, Chief Executive Officer
                        of Titanium Holdings Group, Inc.

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB (the "Form 10-QSB")
for the quarter ended June 30, 2002 of Titanium Holdings Group, Inc. (the
"Issuer"). I, Randall K. Davis, the Chief Executive Officer of Issuer certify
that, to the best of my knowledge:

     (i)  the Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
          or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
          78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

     (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Issuer.

Dated: August 14, 2002.
                                                       /s/ Randall K. Davis
                                              --------------------------------
                                              Randall K. Davis

Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 14th day of August, 2002.

        /s/ Rachel Morales
-----------------------------------------------------
Name:       Rachel Morales
     ------------------------------------------------
Title: Notary Public

My commission expires: 9/25/2004
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-0945-09

ERIC LEE DIAZ, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS

RANDALL COUNTY

Per Curiam.

O P I N I O N

Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault and the court assessed punishment at

confinement for fourteen years. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for want of

jurisdiction after deciding that Appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely. Diaz v. State, No.

07-09-00147-CR (Tex.App-Amarillo, delivered June 2, 2009). On August 3, 2009, Appellant

timely filed his petition for discretionary review in the Court of Appeals. See Tex.R.App.P.

68.2. On September 18, 2009, the Court of Appeals withdrew its opinion, but failed to issue
ERIC LEE DIAZ -2

another opinion in its place. On August 17, 2010, the Court of Appeals issued another

opinion and affirmed the conviction. Diaz v. State, No. 07-09-00147-CR (Amarillo, delivered

August 17, 2010). 

The Court of Appeals’s opinion issued on August 17, 2010, was untimely under rule

50 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure because it was issued more than 60 days after

Appellant’s petition for discretionary review had been filed. Accordingly, the court had no

jurisdiction to issue that opinion. See Miller v. State, 267 S.W.3d 32 (Tex.Cr.App. 2008);

Jones v. State, 280 S.W.3d 847 (Tex.Cr.App. 2006); Beller v. State, 191 S.W.3d 718

(Tex.Cr.App. 2005); Parsons v. State, 187 S.W.3d 385 (Tex.Cr.App. 2005); Ex parte

Brashear, 985 S.W.2d 460 (Tex.Cr.App. 1998); Garza v. State, 896 S.W.2d 192

(Tex.Cr.App. 1995). Therefore, the Court of Appeals’s opinion issued on August 17, 2010,

is ordered withdrawn, and the original judgment and opinion of the Court of Appeals that

issued on June 2, 2009, are reinstated. 

In his initial petition for discretionary review Appellant contended, among other

things, that the Court of Appeals erred to dismiss his appeal because it did not consider or

apply the mailbox rule contained in the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, rule 9.2. We

agree. Accordingly, we grant ground one of Appellant’s petition for discretionary review,

vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals dated June 2, 2009, and remand the case to the

Court of Appeals to properly consider application of rule 9.2.

Delivered November 10, 2010

Do not publish
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 Annual Report of Husky Energy Inc. (the Company) on Form 40-F for the fiscal year
ending December 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jonathan M. McKenzie, Chief 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:



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        
|------------------------
|Date:February 24, 2017  
|                        
|/s/ Jonathan M. McKenzie
|Jonathan M. McKenzie    
|Chief Financial Officer
# C_2017392EN.01002201.xml

| 20.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2017 — Intesa Sanpaolo v EUIPO — Intesia Group Holding (INTESA)

(Case T-143/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark INTESA - Article 51(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No genuine use of the trade mark))

(2017/C 392/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Intesa Sanpaolo SpA (Turin, Italy) (represented by: P. Pozzi and G. Ghisletti, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Rajh, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Intesia Group Holding GmbH (Böblingen, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 January 2016 (Case R 632/2015-1), relating to revocation proceedings between Intesa Sanpaolo and Intesia Group Holding.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Intesa Sanpaolo SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred in the present proceedings by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Intesia Group Holding GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Intesa Sanpaolo SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred in the present proceedings by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Intesia Group Holding GmbH.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.

1

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ignacio OROZCO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 98-10379.

D.C. No. CR 97-00608-GEB.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 11, 2001.*

Decided June 25, 2001.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Ignacio Orozco appeals his guilty plea conviction and 168-month sentence imposed for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) and 846.

Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Orozco’s counsel submitted a brief stating that he found no meritorious issues for review. Appellant has not filed a supplemental pro se brief.

Counsel raises the potential issue of whether Orozco waived his right to appeal pursuant to his plea agreement. *We*review de novo the validity of a waiver of appellate rights. *See United States v. Buchanan,*59 F.3d 914, 917-18 (9th Cir.1995). Although Orozco’s plea agreement contained a waiver of appeal, at sentencing, the district court reinstated the right to appeal with the government’s consent. *566Because the district court’s oral pronouncement controls over a written waiver, we conclude that Orozco’s appeal is properly before this court. *See id.*(stating that the court’s unequivocal statement at sentencing reinstated the right to appeal).

Counsel next raises the potential issue of whether counsel at Orozco’s plea hearing and subsequent counsel at sentencing rendered ineffective assistance. We decline to address these claims on direct appeal as ineffective assistance of counsel claims are more appropriately raised on collateral review. *See United States v. Molina,*934 F.2d 1440, 1446 (9th Cir.1991) (stating that collateral proceedings permit the trial “judge first to decide whether the [ineffective assistance] claim has merit, and second, if it does, to develop a record as to what counsel did, why it was done, and what, if any, prejudice resulted.”).

Finally, counsel raises various potential sentencing issues. We conclude however that the district court properly denied Orozco’s request for an acceptance of responsibility adjustment because Orozco continually asserted that he had no knowledge of the drugs. *See United States v. Scrivener,*189 F.3d 944, 948-49 (9th Cir.1999) (denying acceptance of responsibility adjustment where defendant continually asserted innocence in and at sentencing). Additionally, we conclude that Orozco was not eligible for the “safety valve” because he had more than one criminal history point. *See*U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no further issues for review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
1




---



##### 



st
  
    
    Medical and Dental insurance eligible the first of the month following your hire date
(company paid)
    
    Employee Assistance Program (EAP)
    
    Long Term Disability insurance coverage starting the first of the month following
your hire date
    
    Flexible Spending Account  Section 125 Medical Reimbursement and Dependent Care
accounts eligible within 30 days of your hire date for the following 1st of
the month effective date
    
    AFLAC  Voluntary Cancer Protection, Short Term Disability, Personal Recovery and
Accident / Injury Protection Plans available following date of hire and also during open
enrollment periods
    
    Paid vacation
    
    Paid sick leave
    
    Two weeks paid vacation within your first year of employment and three weeks paid
vacation beginning in your third year of employment. Any additional weeks in vacation
allowance will be subject to standard timing within the companys normal benefit
program.
    
    A special paid Year-End Break to be taken each calendar year between December 25 and
January 1
    
    Eight (8) paid holidays each year and one (1) personal day
    
    Participation in the RLH 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan with a discretionary match
which, if made, will be on a graduated basis based on length of service, eligible on
your hire date
    
    Direct Deposit
    
    Option to purchase shares of RLH stock at a 15% discount through payroll deduction
(Employee Stock Purchase Program)
    
    Voluntary Term Life and AD&D Insurance coverage eligible the first of the month
following your hire date
    
    Continuing education reimbursement
    
    Complimentary Red Lion Family of Hotels accommodations for you and your family
     2




---



##### 



3




---



##### 



th
 /s/ Harry Sladich

Employee Signature
 Through personalized, exuberant service, we will create the most memorable guest experience possible, allowing us to be the
leader in our markets.
 4
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM REPEATER TECHNOLOGIES,
INC.'S FIRST QUARTER FISCAL 2001 CONDENSED, CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           3,156
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,593
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (218)
<INVENTORY>                                      3,804
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,070
<PP&E>                                           6,964
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,630)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,877
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,712
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         10
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                    (13,992)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,877
<SALES>                                          7,355
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,355
<CGS>                                            5,019
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,019
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,502
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (542)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,658)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,658)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,658)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.36)


</TABLE>
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause Number: 01

- 11

- 00325

- CV

Trial Court Cause

Number: 0866374

Style: Miner Dederick Construction, LLP

v Gulf Chemical & Metallurgical Corporation

Date motion filed * : January 17, 2013

Type of motion: Motion for Leave to Amend Motion for Rehearing

Party filing motion: Appellan t

Document to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated? YES NO

Ordered that motion is:

Granted

If document is to be filed, do cument due:

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

Denied

Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

Other:

Judge's signature: /s/ L a ura C. Higley

Acting individually Acting for the Co urt

Panel consists of

Date: January 22

, 2013
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Richard Alan Haase v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.; et.al. and 

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company

Appellate case number: 01-20-00854-CV

Trial court case number: 07-DCV-161177

Trial court: 400th District Court of Fort Bend County

On April 13, 2021, appellants, RICHARD ALAN HAASE and Richard Alan Haase, filed 

a Motion for Trial Court to State Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in connection with 

the trial court’s summary judgments of February 20, 2019 and March 7, 2019 and the trial 

court’s judgment nunc pro tunc of December 1, 2020.

Appellants are not entitled to the requested relief. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 296. We deny the 

motion. 

On April 28, 2021, Appellants filed an original and an Amended Motion for Ruling and 

Request for Extension of Time to File Principal Brief seeking a ruling on their April 13, 2021

Motion and “an extension of time to file [their] principal brief.” We deny Appellants’ Motion 

for Ruling as moot and grant appellants’ Request for Extension of Time. 

Appellants’ brief is due June 3, 2021. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Veronica Rivas-Molloy

 Acting individually 

Date: May 4, 2021
!"#$!%!" !"&'("%!%!)'*%)' !%"&*)+&&""*!$**%,-&) ,*!%+(!"$ ""&)*"$$*"&."&	 ""*"$. $*"&"*)*"/ *%*$('*010234&&$%" "&	*"35-343$"&.%$*!6*%)*'*%)!+ '"!)!""&  !"#%$!%!")% "-& $% )*)!"".)$	 "6*%)*)13-3- "%'*00234  "$))'""%
	

 
-37104122!"#$!%&'( %)
$*
	**#+$ 8089"
*%"*".*,!.54423 :;21<5;00230 .=:;21<5;002>4 ,-&),*?".,)-*+

	
, *"$"*)!%**" $"&'("$	 $**%%""&
)!".'$!+!"&0 !% %$'*0234-
	

 Filed 12/2/2015 4:09:25 PM Billy Fox District Clerk Bowie County, Texas Teresa Tipps, Deputy
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
 THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT OF CONSOLIDATED INCOME AND RETAINED EARNINGS AND THE STATEMENT
OF CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL CONDITION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>                      
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        OCT-31-1998<F1>
<PERIOD-END>                             OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                        14,100
<SECURITIES>                                 108,000
<RECEIVABLES>                              1,523,700
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (12,800)
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   0
<PP&E>                                        14,600
<DEPRECIATION>                                (9,200)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             2,212,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              0
<BONDS>                                    1,611,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                     171,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   110,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               2,212,900
<SALES>                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             275,900
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 88,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              30,100
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 800
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            81,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               85,200
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (32,300)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           52,900
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                  52,900
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0
<FN>
<F1>  THE CORPORATION'S STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION IS UNCLASSIFIED;
THEREFORE, THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CURRENT AND LONG-TERM ASSETS AND
LIABILITIES IS NOT AVAILABLE.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust III (the "Trust") and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding III, L.P.
for the period ended July 1, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Haig J. Nargesian,
Regular Trustee of the Trust, 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 Trust.





                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST III


                              By:  /s/ HAIG J. NARGESIAN
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Haig J. Nargesian *
                              Title:   Regular Trustee









Dated: August 11, 2005
______________________

* Haig J. Nargesian functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
  and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Trust for  purposes  of Section  906
  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.