alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Before the Second Division,

June 21, 1940

No. 43989.

#### Protests 585856-G, etc., of Joseph, Inc., et al. (New York).

*255Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel flouncings, galloons, trimmings, insertings, or allovers composed of net and embroidered, the same as those the subject of *United States*v. *Ramig*(17 C. C. P. A. 365, T. D. 43809), embroidered wearing apparel like that passed upon in *Glemby’s*v. *United States*(13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 533, T. D. 41397), Alegon laces similar to those the subject of *United States*v. *Caesar*(18 C. C. P. A. 106, T. D. 44067), filet laces like those passed upon in *United States*v. *Jabara*(22 id. 77, T. D. 47065), and Normandy laces similar to those covered by *United States*v. *Amrein*(26 id. 353, C. A. D. 40) were held dutiable at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 as claimed. Silk wearing apparel the same as that passed upon in Abstruct 29972 was held dutiable at 60 percent under paragraph 1210.
EXHIBIT 21
                       IONICS, INCORPORATED

                  SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


                                                   State or Other
                  Name                       Jurisdiction of Incorporation
                  ----                       -----------------------------

Ionics Agar Environmental Ltd.                         Israel
Apollo Ultrapure Water Systems, Inc.                   California
Aqua Design, Inc.*                                     California
Aquarelle S.A.+                                        France
Elite Chemicals Pty. Ltd.                              Australia
Favourable Trading Ltd.                                Ireland
Fidelity Purewater, Inc.                               California
Fidelity Water Systems, Inc.                           California
Global Water Services, S.A.++                          Panama
Ionics Acapulco, S.A.                                  Mexico
Ionics Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd.                          Singapore
Ionics (Bermuda) Ltd.*                                 Bermuda
Ionics Enersave Engineering Sdn Bhd**                  Malaysia
Ionics Foreign Sales Corporation Limited               Jamaica
Ionics France S.A.                                     France
Ionics Freshwater Ltd.+++                              Barbados
Ionics Iberica, S.A.                                   Spain
Ionics Italba, S.p.A.++++                              Italy
Ionics (Korea) Ltd.                                    Delaware
Ionics Life Sciences, Inc.                             New Jersey
Ionics Mega a.s.***                                    Czech Republic
Ionics Nederland B.V.                                  The Netherlands
Ionics Taiwan, Inc.                                    Taiwan
Ionics Ultrapure Water Corporation                     California
Ionics (U.K.) Limited                                  United Kingdom
Ionics Watertec Pty. Ltd.                              Australia
Resources Conservation Co. International               Delaware
Separation Technology, Inc.****                        Minnesota
Sievers Instruments, Inc.                              Colorado

*    The Registrant,  either  directly,  through Aqua Design,  Inc. or through
     Ionics (Bermuda) Ltd.,  wholly owns 13 subsidiary  corporations
     incorporated in various Caribbean jurisdictions.  These subsidiary
     corporations own and operate, or operate and maintain,  desalination
     plants for the supply of potable water to resorts,  hotels and
     municipalities.
**   Registrant through Ionics Iberica, S.A.owns 55% of this entity.  This
     entity has subsidiary  operations in Malaysia and China.
***  Registrant  owns 80% of this entity.
**** Owns a U.K.  subsidiary, SeparaTech  Limited.
+    This entity is wholly owned by Ionics France S.A.
++   This entity is wholly  owned by Ionics  (U.K.) Ltd.
+++  Registrant  owns 50% of this entity
++++ This entity owns a 75%  interest  in  Agrinord  S.r.1.,  an Italian
     corporation in the waste treatment business.

                                   E-2
Form of Amendment No. 1 to the Services Agreement



 Exhibit 10.28 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO SERVICES AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment No. 1 to Services Agreement (this
“Amendment”) is entered into as of [                    ], 2008 by and between Morgan Stanley, a Delaware corporation
(“Morgan Stanley”) and MSCI Inc., a Delaware corporation (“MSCI”). 
 RECITALS 
 WHEREAS, Morgan Stanley and MSCI are parties to a Services Agreement dated as of November 20, 2007 (“Services Agreement”) pursuant
to which Morgan Stanley provides certain services to the MSCI Group; and 
 WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 8.12 of the Services
Agreement, Morgan Stanley and MSCI wish to amend the Services Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth herein. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, for
good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Morgan Stanley and MSCI, for themselves, their successors and permitted assigns, hereby agree as follows: 
 Section 1. Defined Terms; References. (a) Unless otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms used herein shall have the meaning given
to those terms in the Services Agreement. Each reference to “hereof”, “hereunder”, “herein”, and “hereby” and each other similar reference and each reference to “this Agreement” and each other
similar reference contained in the Services Agreement shall, after this Amendment becomes effective, refer to the Services Agreement as amended hereby. 
 Section 2. Trigger Date. The definition of “Trigger Date” in Section 1.01 of the Services Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as follows: 
 “Trigger Date” means the date upon which Morgan Stanley shall cease to own greater than 50% of the Total Voting Power of MSCI. 
 Section 3. Continuation of Services Agreement. Except as otherwise modified by this Amendment, all of the other terms and provisions of the
Services Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. 
 Section 4. Governing Law. This Amendment shall be construed in
accordance with and governed by the law of the State of New York, without regard to the conflicts of laws rules thereof. 







 Section 5. Effectiveness. This Amendment shall become effective as of the date hereof.

 Section 6. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
original and all of which, when taken together, shall constitute one agreement. 
 [Remainder of page intentionally left blank]

  

 2 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed by their respective
authorized officers as of the date first above written. 
  

			
	MORGAN STANLEY
		
	By:	 	  

	Name:	 	
	Title:	 	
	
	MSCI INC.
		
	By:	 	  

	Name:	 	
	Title:
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, Nelson A. Locke, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of Amstar Financial Services, 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 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(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 the 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 5, 2008

/s/Nelson A. Locke
------------------------
Nelson A. Locke
Chief Executive Officer
# FILED
Ap ril 23, 1997 Cecil W. Crowson Ap pellate Cou rt Clerk 

## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE

DORRIS M. DARDEN, ) ) Plaintiff /Appella nt, )

) Davidson Chancery ) No. 95-417-III VS. ) ) Appeal N o. ) 01A01-9610- CH-00458 BILLY J. STO KES, Commissioner ) of the Tennessee D epartment of ) Employment Securi ty, and ) ALVIN C. YORK VETERANS ) MEDICAL CE

NTER, )

) Defenda nts/Appell ees. )


## CONCUR RING OPIN ION

I concur w ith theresults of the court’s opinion. The administrative record contains substantial

and mater

ial eviden ce supporti ng the Bo ard of Review’s conclusions that Ms. D arden’s j ob did not cause her

manic-de pressive c ondition and, therefore, that Ms. Darden l eft her employment vo luntarily a nd without go od cause conn ected wi th the wor k.

_________________ ___________ WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE
### SERVED:· 

### June 15, 2016 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC

In The Matter Of: Offshore Flight School, Inc. Respondent ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. FAA-2014-0691 Case No. 2014WP910016



### ORDER GRANTING JOINT REQUEST FORA CONTINUANCE On April 4, 2016, the undersignedjudge issued an Order Directing the Parties to Meet and Confer Regarding Litigation and Scheduling Issues in the above captioned case. The order required, 

### inter alia, the parties to submit ajointreport to the undersignedjudge within 30 days. On May 2, 2016, the Respondent's counsel submitted a request for a continuance of30 days for filing thejointreport. On May 3, 2016, the ilndersignedjudge granted this request,**r~quiring** the parties to submit theirjointreport by June 3, 2016. Neither the Complainantnor the Respondent submitted a report before that dleadline. OnJune 8, 2016, a new counsel for the Complainant submitted a Notice ofAppearance, explaining that the previously assigned counsel had left the Federal Aviation Administration. ·onJune 13, 2016, the parties submitted ajointrequest for a continuance due to the change in · counsel for the Complainant. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.205(a)(8), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The request for a continuance is granted. 2. The parties shall submit theirjointreport to the undersignedjudge by 

### July 15, 2016

.



# .**7/£~·** 

# ·------ ei50lJGLfr M. RAW ALD 

### t l :11 Administrative Law Judge

Attachment: Service ListSERVICE LIST - BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

### Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1

ONE COPY 

### President, Offshore Flight School, Inc., Respondent 

### 100 Iolana Place, #A Honolulu, HI 96819 TEL: 808-836-8688 David Glenn Bettencourt, Respondent's Counsel 

### Dillingham Transportation Building, Suite 304 735 Bishop Street Honolulu, HI 96813 TEL: 808-521-3491 FAX: 808-521-3494 Charles Raley, Complainant's Counsel 

### Enforcement Division/ AGC-300 Office ofthe ChiefCounsel Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 TEL: 202-267-3357. FAX: 202-267-5106 The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald, Administr?Jtive LawJudge 

### Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (El 1-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 Docket No. FAA-2014-0691 (Civil PenaltyAction)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federa1 Aviation Administrati©n, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIUS LEE JACKSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0983 LKK GGH P

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On April 19, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the magistrate

judge’s order filed March 30, 2006, denying plaintiff’s March 9, 2006 motion to appoint counsel. 

Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 72-303(f), a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld unless “clearly

erroneous or contrary to law.” Upon review of the entire file, the court finds that it does not

appear that the magistrate judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, the order of the

magistrate judge filed March 30, 2006, is affirmed. 

DATED: September 11, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-00983-LKK -GGH Document 77 Filed 09/11/06 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement(Form S-8 No. 333-126149) pertaining to the Earle M. Jorgensen Holding Company, Inc. Option Plan, Earle M. Jorgensen Company 2004 Stock Incentive Plan and Earle M. Jorgensen Stock Bonus Plan, of our report dated May 12, 2005, with respect to theconsolidated financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended March 31, 2005. 

 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

 

Orange County, California 

June 24, 2005
MANATT, PHELPS &

PHILLIPS, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

40838031.1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE

MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 

GEOFFREY T. TONG (Bar No. CA 140312) 

YVETTE L. ESPINOZA (Bar No. CA 221065) 

11355 West Olympic Boulevard 

Los Angeles, CA 90064-1614 

Telephone: (310) 312-4000 

Facsimile: (310) 312-4224 

Attorneys for Defendant 

THE MEGA LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

MARY DENISE SUTHERLAND, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

THE MEGA LIFE AND HEALTH 

INSURANCE COMPANY, UGAASSOCIATION FIELD SERVICES, 

WENDY WILSON; and DOES 1 

through 10, 

Defendants. 

Case No. CIV. S-04-1060 DFL JFM 

Judge David F. Levi 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE 

[FRCP 41(a)(1)] 

Courtroom 7 

TO THE HONORABLE DAVID F. LEVI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties to this action through their 

designated counsel that the above-captioned action be and hereby is dismissed with prejudice 

pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1), with each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. 

Case 2:04-cv-01060-DFL -JFM Document 11 Filed 04/25/05 Page 1 of 2
MANATT, PHELPS &

PHILLIPS, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 

40838031.1 2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE 

Dated: April 18, 2005 MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 

GEOFFREY T. TONG 

 YVETTE L. ESPINOZA 

 By: s/ Yvette L. Espinoza 

Yvette L. Espinoza 

Attorneys for Defendant

THE MEGA LIFE AND HEALTH 

INSURANCE COMPANY 

Dated: April 21, 2005 RANDY E. THOMAS 

 By: s/ Randy E. Thomas 

Randy E. Thomas 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Mary Denise Sutherland 

ORDER

Based upon the parties’ Stipulation, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

This action is dismissed with prejudice, in its entirety, with each party to bear its own 

attorneys’ fees and costs. 

Dated: 22 April 2005 ______/s/ David F. Levi___________ 

 DAVID F. LEVI 

 United States District Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-01060-DFL -JFM Document 11 Filed 04/25/05 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                     EXHIBIT 12


                                         MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST III
                                         MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING III, L.P.
                                         COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO
                         COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED SECURITIES DISTRIBUTIONS (UNAUDITED)
                                                 (dollars in thousands)



                              FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED          FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                     March 28, 2008                      March 30, 2007
                           ---------------------------------  ---------------------------------
                              MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH     MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH
                                 PREFERRED       PREFERRED          PREFERRED       PREFERRED
                           CAPITAL TRUST III FUNDING III,L.P. CAPITAL TRUST III FUNDING III,L.P.
                           ----------------- ---------------  ----------------- ---------------

<S>                        <C>                 <C>            <C>               <C>

Earnings                       $ 13,531           $ 15,831        $ 13,531           $ 15,876
                               ========           ========        ========           ========


Fixed charges                  $      -           $      -        $      -           $      -

Preferred securities
 distribution
 requirements                    13,125             13,531          13,125             13,531
                               --------           --------        --------           --------

Total combined fixed
 charges and preferred
 securities distribution
 requirments                   $ 13,125           $ 13,531        $ 13,125           $ 13,531
                               ========           ========        ========           ========

Ratio of earnings to
 combined fixed charges
 and preferred securities
 distribution requirements         1.03               1.17            1.03               1.17


</TABLE>
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 3/24/2023 1

Disqualification of a Primary-Election Candidate 

for Previously Running as an Independent 

Swanson v. Pitt 

(Myron H. Thompson, M.D. Ala. 2:04-cv-534) 

A would-be candidate for the United States Senate filed a pro se 

federal complaint alleging that it was improper to exclude him as a 

candidate in a primary election for having previously run as an independent. The district judge declined to issue a temporary restraining order; later, he granted the defendants summary judgment. 

Subject: Getting on the ballot. Topics: Getting on the ballot; 

primary election; pro se party. 

A would-be candidate for the United States Senate filed a pro se federal complaint in the Middle District of Alabama on June 1, 2004, claiming that it was 

improper to exclude him as a candidate in the Democratic primary election 

for having previously run as an independent.1 In 2002, the plaintiff attempted 

to qualify for the ballot as an independent candidate, and failing to do so he 

ran as a write-in candidate.2 Among the relief sought was a temporary restraining order.3

On June 2, Judge Myron H. Thompson declined to issue a temporary restraining order.4

 On August 4, he granted the defendants summary judgment.5

1. Complaint, Swanson v. Pitt, No. 2:04-cv-534 (M.D. Ala. June 1, 2004), D.E. 1 [hereinafter Swanson Complaint]; Swanson v. Pitt, 330 F. Supp. 2d 1269, 1271–72 (M.D. Ala. 2004). 

2. Swanson, 330 F. Supp. 2d at 1273 & n.6; see Swanson v. Worley, 490 F.3d 894 (11th 

Cir. 2007) (denying relief from a signature requirement); Swanson v. Bennett, 219 F. Supp. 

2d 1225 (M.D. Ala. 2002) (providing relief to other candidates with sufficient signatures 

from a last-minute change in the due date); Opinion, Swanson v. Bennett, No. 2:02-cv-1244 

(M.D. Ala. Feb. 18, 2003), D.E. 18 (denying relief for alleged interferences with write-in 

votes). 

3. Swanson Complaint, supra note 1. 

4. Order, Swanson, No. 2:04-cv-534 (M.D. Ala. June 2, 2004), D.E. 14. 

5. Swanson, 330 F. Supp. 2d 1269.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1


                           EARLE M. JORGENSEN COMPANY

                        STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF RATIO
                          OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  YEAR ENDED MARCH 31,
                                                         --------------------------------------
                                                           1997           1996           1995
                                                         --------       --------       --------
<S>                                                      <C>            <C>            <C>
Income (loss) before income taxes                        $(26,055)      $(38,248)      $ 23,406

Fixed charges to be added back to earnings:
  Interest and debt expense                                41,223         41,153         34,971
  Rentals (one-third of all rent and related costs
    charged to income)                                      5,596          5,948          5,545
                                                         --------       --------       --------
    Total fixed charges                                    46,819         47,101         40,516
                                                         --------       --------       --------

Earnings before income taxes and fixed charges           $ 20,764       $  8,853       $ 63,922
                                                         --------       --------       --------
                                                         --------       --------       --------

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                            .44            .19           1.58
                                                         --------       --------       --------
                                                         --------       --------       --------

Amount by which earnings are inadequate to cover
  fixed charges                                          $(26,055)      $(38,248)      $    ---
                                                         --------       --------       --------
                                                         --------       --------       --------
</TABLE>


                                       53