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


                                                                     EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
<TABLE>


All of the subsidiaries listed below are included in the consolidated financial
statements.
<CAPTION>

                                      Percentage of         Organized
                                    Voting Securities       Under the
Incorporated                       Owned by Registrant       Laws of
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<S>                                         <C>         <C>
Instron Realty Trust                        100%        Massachusetts (1)
Instron Japan Company, Ltd.                 100%        Massachusetts (1)
Instron Asia, Ltd.                          100%        Massachusetts (1)
Instron Canada Inc.                         100%        Canada (1)
Instron Export Corporation                  100%        Massachusetts (1)
Instron Foreign Sales Corporation           100%        Jamaica (1)
Instron Lawrence Corporation                100%        Pennsylvania (1)
Equipamentos Cientificos Instron, Ltda.     100%        Brazil (1)
Instron Limited                             100%        United Kingdom (2)
Instron S.A.                                100%        France (2)
Instron Proprietary, Ltd.                   100%        Australia (2)
Instron Environmental, Ltd.                 100%        United Kingdom (2)
Instron International, Ltd.                 100%        United Kingdom (2)
Severn Furnaces, Ltd.                       100%        United Kingdom o (2)
Instron Singapore Pte Limited               100%        Singapore (1)
Instron Holdings, Ltd.                      100%        United Kingdom (1)
Instron Wolpert GmbH                        100%        Germany (2)
Instron Korea Co. Ltd.                      100%        Korea (1)

<FN>

{1)  Subsidiaries of Instron Corporation (a Massachusetts corporation).

(2)  Subsidiaries of Instron Holdings Limited (United Kingdom).

</TABLE>

                                       42
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 31 (Friday, February 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 9030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03298]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8631]

Notice of Closed Meeting of the Cultural Property Advisory 
Committee

    There will be a closed meeting of the Cultural Property Advisory 
Committee on Thursday, March 13, and Friday, March 14, 2014, at the 
Department of State, Annex 5, 2200 C Street NW., Washington, DC.
    The Committee will conduct interim reviews of the Memorandum of 
Understanding Between the Government of the United States of America 
and the Government of the Republic of Italy Concerning the Imposition 
of Import Restrictions on Categories of Archaeological Material 
Representing the Pre-Classical, Classical and Imperial Roman Periods of 
Italy, and the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of 
the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of 
Colombia Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on 
Archaeological Materials from the Pre-Columbian Cultures and Certain 
Ecclesiastical Material from the Colonial Period of Colombia. Public 
comment, oral and written, will be invited at a time in the future 
should either or both of these Memoranda of Understanding be proposed 
for extension.
    The Committee's responsibilities are carried out in accordance with 
provisions of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act 
(19 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.). The text of the Act and Memoranda of 
Understanding, as well as related information, may be found at http://culturalheritage.state.gov.
    This meeting will be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) and 
19 U.S.C. 2605(h), the latter of which stipulates that ``The provisions 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act . . . shall apply to the 
[Cultural Property Advisory] Committee except that the requirements of 
subsections (a) and (b) of section 10 and 11 of such Act (relating to 
open meetings, public notice, public participation, and public 
availability of documents) shall not apply to the Committee, whenever 
and to the extent it is determined by the President or his designee 
that the disclosure of matters involved in the Committee's proceedings 
would compromise the Government's negotiation objectives or bargaining 
positions on the negotiations of any agreement authorized by this 
title.''
    Pursuant to law, executive order, and delegation of authority, I 
have made such a determination.

    Dated: February 7, 2014.
Evan Ryan,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, U.S. 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-03298 Filed 2-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
(Reap. Dec. 8608)

Entry No. 710884, etc.

#### International Electronics Corp. *v.*United States

(Decided June 27, 1956)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

The appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in schedule *“A,”*attached to and made part of the decision herein, present the question of the proper dutiable value of certain ultrasonic soldering irons; complete with power generators.

*465When said appeals were called for hearing, counsel for the parties entered into an oral stipulation of fact as follows: “that the merchandise consists of ultrasonic soldering iron, complete with power generator, that the value is 62 pounds 10 shillings sterling each, less 2}( per cent cash discount, packed, as representing export value, there being no foreign value for such or similar merchandise as the prices and disposition are controlled in the home market.”

Upon the agreed statement of fact, I find and hold that export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value is £62 10s. sterling each, less *2%*per centum cash discount, packed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
Presidential Documents

80549 

Federal Register 

Vol. 88, No. 221 

Friday, November 17, 2023 

Title 3— 

The President 

Notice of November 16, 2023 

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the 

Situation in Nicaragua 

On November 27, 2018, by Executive Order 13851, the President declared 

a national emergency pursuant to the International Emergency Economic 

Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United 

States constituted by the situation in Nicaragua. On October 24, 2022, I 

issued Executive Order 14088 to take additional steps with respect to the 

national emergency declared in Executive Order 13851. 

The situation in Nicaragua, including the violent response by the Government 

of Nicaragua to the protests that began on April 18, 2018, and the OrtegaMurillo regime’s continued systematic dismantling and undermining of 

democratic institutions and the rule of law, its use of indiscriminate violence 

and repressive tactics against civilians, as well as its corruption leading 

to the destabilization of Nicaragua’s economy, continues to pose an unusual 

and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the 

United States. For this reason, the national emergency declared on November 

27, 2018, must continue in effect beyond November 27, 2023. Therefore, 

in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 

U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared 

in Executive Order 13851 with respect to the situation in Nicaragua. 

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to 

the Congress. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

November 16, 2023. 

[FR Doc. 2023–25713 

Filed 11–16–23; 11:15 am] 

Billing code 3395–F4–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PRESDOC4BIDEN.EPS</GPH>
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00365-CV

Andy A. Atchley and Karri D. Atchley

v.

Chase Home Finance LLC, and 

Federal National Mortgage 

Association

§

§

§

§

From the 153rd District Court

of Tarrant County (153-252122-11)

June 20, 2013

Opinion by Justice Meier

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was error in the trial court’s order. It is ordered that the order of the trial 

court is reversed in part, modified in part, and affirmed as modified. We 

(1) reverse the trial court’s order as to Appellants’ fraudulent lien claim and 

remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings on that claim and 

(2) modify the portion of the order awarding Appellees $6,000 for attorneys’ fees 

to reflect that Appellees are awarded $5,000 for attorneys’ fees. We affirm the 

trial court’s order as modified.

It is further ordered that Appellants Andy A. Atchley and Karri D. Atchley

shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _________________________________

 Justice Bill Meier
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TODD W. AVARA,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1044 MCE DAD P

vs.

DARREL G. ADAMS, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

corpus. On January 12, 2006, respondents filed their answer to petitioner’s amended petition,

and petitioner filed a traverse on February 6, 2006.

Petitioner’s traverse includes the following paragraph:

Petitioner incorporates by reference the Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus, along with any supporting documents, including

the Supporting Exhibits and Points and Authorities previously

filed. Further, Petitioner incorporates by reference Petitioner’s

Points and Authorities in Support of Travers [sic], which is being

submitted contemporaneously.

(Pet’r’s Traverse at 3.) The three-page traverse does not include points and authorities and was

accompanied only by a proof of service by mail. The amended petition filed September 14,

2005, consists solely of the six-page form petition, as did the original petition filed June 1, 2004. 

Case 2:04-cv-01044-ALA Document 39 Filed 04/14/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Petitioner has not filed supporting exhibits or points and authorities at any time in this action. 

Petitioner will be granted sixty days to submit any points and authorities and/or supporting

exhibits that he wants the court to consider in ruling on his amended petition.

Petitioner’s traverse also includes a demand for an evidentiary hearing “on all the

claims in the petition” and a renewed request for appointment of counsel. (Id. at 2-3.) The

renewed request for appointment of counsel will be denied for the reasons stated in the February

9, 2006 order denying petitioner’s previous request. The conclusory request for an evidentiary

hearing will be denied for failure to demonstrate that an evidentiary hearing is warranted on any

claim.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s requests for appointment of counsel and for evidentiary hearing

included in his traverse filed February 6, 2006, are denied; and

2. Petitioner is granted sixty days to file and serve any points and authorities

and/or supporting exhibits he wants the court to consider in ruling on the four grounds for relief

presented in his amended petition for writ of habeas corpus.

DATED: April 14, 2006.

DAD:13

avar1044.mem

Case 2:04-cv-01044-ALA Document 39 Filed 04/14/06 Page 2 of 2
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN TRACEY HILL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0775 RRB GGH P

vs.

CA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendants’ motion for summary judgment filed

June 28, 2006.

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to defendants’ motion. In the order directing

service filed June 14, 2005, the court stated that “[i]f plaintiff does not serve and file a written

opposition to the motion or a request to postpone consideration of defendants’ motion, the court

may consider the failure to act as a waiver of opposition to defendant’s motion.” See Local Rule

78-230 (m). Defendants’ notice of motion also directed plaintiff to Local Rule 78-230 for

information regarding summary judgment.

A district court may not grant a motion for summary judgment simply because the

nonmoving party does not file opposing material, even if the failure to oppose violates a local

Case 2:04-cv-00775-RRB-GGH Document 41 Filed 09/11/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

rule. Martinez v. Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2003); Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652

(9th Cir. March 9, 1994), citing Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1993). 

However, when the local rule does not require, but merely permits the court to grant a motion for

summary judgment, the district court has discretion to determine whether noncompliance should

be deemed consent to the motion. Id.

In the instant case, plaintiff has been warned that his failure to oppose a motion

for summary judgment may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion. Based on

plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition, the court concludes that plaintiff has consented to

defendants’ motion for summary judgment. In the alternative, the court finds that defendants’

motion has merit.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants’ June 28, 2006,

motion for summary judgment be granted.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 9/11/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:035

hill0775.46

Case 2:04-cv-00775-RRB-GGH Document 41 Filed 09/11/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 55914.

protest 170327-K (Baltimore).

#### H. Klaff & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cole, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the nickel metal scrap consists of "a nonferrous material or article in chief value of metal, and that it is second-hand or waste or refuse fit only to be remanufactured,” the claim for free entry was sustained.
Before the Third Division,

February 16, 1950

No. 54031.

#### Denebeim Distilling Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 112099-K, etc. (St. Louis).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
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>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          40,502
<SECURITIES>                                     1,032
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,427
<ALLOWANCES>                                       319
<INVENTORY>                                      2,347
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                61,650
<PP&E>                                           2,458
<DEPRECIATION>                                     696
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  82,629
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,224
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            16
<OTHER-SE>                                      69,950
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    82,629
<SALES>                                          5,710
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,710
<CGS>                                            3,643
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,205
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (616)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,522)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        15
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,537)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,537)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.34)


</TABLE>
No. 43987.

#### Petition 5806-R of General Dyestuff Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

It appeared that in entering into a stipulation as to the value of the commodities the importer omitted to make a deduction of a certain item which section 402 (g), Tariff Act of 1930, authorized to be deducted in arriving at American selling price. It was found that there was no intention to defraud the revenue or to conceal or misrepresent the facts. The petition was therefore granted. *General Dyestuff Corp.*v. *United States*(3 Cust. Ct. 304, C. D. 261) cited.
## In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 13

- 00213

- CR

DONALD RANDALL CARTER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 71st District Court

Harrison County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10

- 0080X

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Donald Randall Carter, appellant, has filed with this Court a motion to dismiss his appeal.

The motion was signed by both Carter and his counsel in compliance with Rule 42.2(a) of the

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a). As a uthorized by Rule

42.2(a), we grant the motion. See id

.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: October 16, 2013

Date Decided: October 17, 2013

Do Not Publish
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4021 

To place restrictions on the official display of flags, seals, or emblems other 

than the United States flag. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 21, 2024 

Mr. RUBIO introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To place restrictions on the official display of flags, seals, 

or emblems other than the United States flag. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DISPLAY OF FLAGS, SEALS, AND EMBLEMS 

4 OTHER THAN THE UNITED STATES FLAG. 

5 Any flag, seal, or emblem that is not the United 

6 States flag and is flown, draped, projected, or displayed 

7 otherwise as a visual and symbolic representation at a 

8 United States diplomatic mission, official residence, or of9 ficial office, or on an official United States vehicle— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4021 IS

1 (1) shall be smaller than the official United 

2 States flag; and 

3 (2) if flown, may not be displayed higher than 

4 or above the United States flag. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Before the Third Division,

April 14, 1954

No. 58009.

protest 187410-K (New York).

#### Gerhard & Hey Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson-, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues are similar to those involved in Abstract 57104, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 48474.

#### Protests 74804-K, etc., of Wm. J. Beer Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Order entered December 3, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-01086-CR

ADRIAN ROOSEVELT MCDANIEL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F14-57440-H

ORDER

The reporter’s record is overdue in this appeal. We also note that the record does not 

contain the trial court’s certification of appellant’s right to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a), 

(d); Cortez v. State, 420 S.W.3d 803 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).

Accordingly, we ORDER the trial court to prepare and file a certification of appellant’s 

right to appeal that accurately reflects the trial court proceedings.

We further ORDER the trial court to make findings of fact regarding whether appellant 

has been deprived of the reporter’s record because of ineffective counsel, indigence, or for any 

other reason.

 The trial court shall first determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal. If 

the trial court determines that appellant does not desire to prosecute the appeal, it shall 

make a finding to that effect.
 If the trial court determines that appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, it shall next 

determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without payment of costs 

for the reporter’s record. If appellant is entitled to proceed without payment of costs, the 

trial court shall make a finding to that effect. Moreover, if appellant is indigent, the trial 

court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective 

representation, which may include appointment of new counsel. If the trial court finds 

appellant is not indigent, it shall determine whether retained counsel has abandoned the 

appeal.

 The trial court shall next determine: (1) the name and address of each court reporter who 

recorded the proceedings in this cause; (2) the court reporter’s explanation for the delay 

in filing the reporter’s record; and (3) the earliest date by which the reporter’s record can 

be filed. 

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record, containing the written findings of fact, 

any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date 

of this order. The supplemental record shall also contain the trial court’s certification of 

appellant’s right to appeal.

The appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeal 

shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, 

whichever is earlier.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE